# Agency f **or T oxic** 

**Substances and**

**Disease Registry**

**Di vision of Health Studies** 



# A Study of Ambient Air Contaminants and

**Asthma in New Y ork City** 

**P art A and B** 

**FIN AL REPOR**  **T**

**J uly 2006** 

**U .S. DEP**  **AR TMENT OF HEAL**  **TH**

**& HUMAN SER VICES** 

Public Health Service

Agenc y for T oxic Substances

and Disease Re gistry

Atlanta, Geor gia 30333

106152-8-06

# Additional copies of this report are a v ailable from:

National T echnical Information Service, Springf ield, V ir ginia

(800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6244

Request publication number PB2006-113523

# A Study of Ambient Air Contaminants and

Asthma in New York City

Final Report

Part A:

A Comparison of Ambient Air Quality in

the Bronx and Manhattan

P r ep a r ed b y :

New Y o r k St at e De part m e nt of Heal t h

C e nt er fo r E n vi r onm ent a l Heal t h

54 7 R i ver St

Tr o y, NY 12 18 0- 2216

P r ep a r ed f o r :

The U. S. De part m e nt of Heal t h a n d Hum a n Se rvi ces

Age n cy fo r T oxi c S ubst a nces a n d Di sease R e gi st ry

(C o ope rat i v e A g reem ent V 50/ A T V 2 00 0 0 2

- 11)

Pro j ect M a nage r – M o h a m m e d U ddi n, M D, M P H

The Ne w York State E n ergy Res earch and Dev e lop m en t Au thority

(G rant 1 4

- 0 034 -0 1 )

Pro j ect M a nage r – El l e n B u r kha r d , P h D

Fi nal : 17 Ju ly

, 2 0 0 6NOTI CE

Thi s rep o rt was p r epa r e d by t h e Ne w Yo r k St at e Depa rt m e nt of Heal t h ’ s C e nt e r f o r E n vi ronm ent a l Heal t h

,

th e New Yo rk State Dep a rtm e n t o f Env i ron m en tal Co n s erv a tion an d Co l u m b ia Un iv ersity in th e co urse o f

per f o r m i ng w o r k c o nt ract ed fo r an d sp o n so red by t h e Ne w York State E n ergy R e sea r ch an d De vel o pm ent

Aut h ority and the U.S. Age n cy for T oxic Substances a n d Disease Registry (herea fter “the Sp ons o rs”). The

opi ni o n s e x presse d i n t h i s re po rt do n o t necessa ri l y refl ect t h o s e o f t h e S p o n s o rs o r t h e St at e of Ne w Y o r k

,

and re fere nce to a n y s p ecific product, service, pr ocess

, or m e thod doe s not constitute an im plied or

expresse d recomm endation or e n dorsem en t o f it. Fu rth e r, th e Spon sors a n d the State of New York m ake no

warran ties o r rep r esen tation s , exp r essed or im p lie d, as t o t h e fi t n e ss f o r part i c ul ar pu rp ose or

merchanta b ility of a n y product, a p parat u s, or se rvice, or t h e usefulness, c o m p leteness, or accuracy of a n y

pr ocesses , m e t hods

, or ot h e r i n f o rm at i on c ont ai ne d, de scri bed

, di scl o se d, or re fer r ed t o i n t h i s re p o rt

. The

Sp ons o r s, t h e St at e of Ne w Yo r k

, an d t h e c ont ract o r s m a ke no rep r ese n t a t i on t h at t h e use o f a n y pr od uct

,

appa ratus

, process

, m e thod, or ot he r inform ation will not infri nge pr ivately owne d ri ghts and will assum e

n o liab ility fo r an y l o ss, inj u ry, o r d a m a g e resulting fro m

, o r occu rring in co nnectio n with, the u s e o f

i n f o rm at i on con t ai ne d, desc ri be d, di scl o s e d , or refe rre d t o i n t h i s re po rt

.

iiCONTENTS

NOT ICE

........................................................................................................................ .............................. ii

LIST OF T A BLES

................................................................................................................ ..................... iv

LIST OF F I GU RES

............................................................................................................... ...................... v

SUMMAR Y

....................................................................................................................... ......................... 9

INTR OD UCT I O N

.................................................................................................................. ................... 13

OBJECTI V E S

.................................................................................................................... ....................... 15

BACK GRO U N D

.................................................................................................................... ................... 17

METHO D S

....................................................................................................................... ......................... 21

RESULT S

....................................................................................................................... ........................... 29

DISC US SI ON

.................................................................................................................... ....................... 37

CONCL U S I ON S A N D RECOMME ND AT IO NS

.................................................................................... 43

REFERENC ES

.................................................................................................................... ...................... 45

AUT H O RS AN D AC KN O W LE DGME N TS

............................................................................................ 49

TABLES

........................................................................................................................ ............................ 51

FIG U RES

....................................................................................................................... ........................... 63

APPE N D ICE S

.................................................................................................................... ..................... 135

iiiLIST OF T A BLES

Table 1. U. S. Ce ns us a n d N Y S m o tor vehicle r e gi stration data

................................................................. 52

Table 2. B u si nes s data

......................................................................................................... ....................... 53

Table 3. A v erage particul ate m a tter conc e n trations

............................................................................. ...... 54

Table 4. A v erage particle c ount

................................................................................................ .................. 54

Table 5. A v erage pH, s u lfate, elem ental car bon a n d or ganic ca r b on c o ncent r ations

................................. 54

Table 6. A v erage particulat e m e tals conc e n trations

............................................................................. ...... 55

Table 7. A v erage po llen c oncen trations

......................................................................................... ............ 55

Table 8. A v erage m o ld c oncentrations

........................................................................................... ............ 55

Table 9. Average acet one and al dehy de c o ncentrations

........................................................................... .. 56

Table 10. Ave r a g e acidic a n d basic gas c o n centrati ons

.......................................................................... .... 56

Table 11. Ave r a g e ozone, sul f ur dioxid e and nitroge n oxid e concent r ations

............................................. 56

Tabl e 12 . C o m p ari s on o f a v era g e pa rt i c ul at e m a tter conce n trations bet w een two Bronx

sam p ling lo cations

............................................................................................................. .... 57

Table 13. Com p aris on of a v erage pH, s u lf ate, elem ental carbo n a n d or gani c car bo n

conce n trations bet w een tw o Br onx sam p ling locations

........................................................ 57

Tabl e 14 . C o m p ari s on o f a v era g e pa rt i c ul at e m e t a l s conce n t r at i o ns bet w ee n t w o B r on x

sam p ling lo cations

............................................................................................................. .... 57

Tabl e 15 . C o m p ari s on o f a v era g e p o l l e n a n d m o l d co nce n t r at i o ns bet w ee n t w o B r on x

sam p ling lo cations

............................................................................................................. .... 58

Table 16. Com p aris on of a v era g e acet one a nd alde hyde c o ncent r ations betwee n two

Bronx sam p ling locations

...................................................................................................... 5 8

Table 17. Com p aris on of a v era g e aci dic a n d basi c gas co ncent r at i o ns bet w ee n t w o B r on x

sam p ling lo cations

............................................................................................................. .... 59

Tabl e 18 . C o m p ari s on o f a v era g e oz one , s u l f u r

di oxi de a n d ni t r o g en o x i d e co nce n t r at i o ns

betwee n tw o Br onx sa m p ling locations

................................................................................ 59

Tabl e 19

. Dai l y m a xim u m conce n t r at i o ns fo r a n al y t es m easured as o n e

- hour o r t h ree-hour

tim e -weighted ave r a g es

......................................................................................................... 60

Table 20. Pea r s o n correlation c o efficients fo r co rr esp ond ing observ a tion s at th e Bron x

and Manhattan s am p ling locations

........................................................................................ 61

Tab l e 2 1 . Pearso n correlation co efficien ts with in sam p lin g lo cation fo r correspo n d i ng

daily avera g e and daily m a xim u m observations

................................................................... 61

Table 22. Pea r s o n correlation c o efficients fo r co rr esp ond ing observ a tion s at th e Bron x

and Manhattan s am p ling locatio ns, stratified by year

........................................................... 62

ivLIST OF FIGURE S

Figure 1. Br onx sam p ling lo cations

............................................................................................. ............... 64

Figure 2. Manhatta n sam p ling l o cation

.......................................................................................... ............ 65

F i g u r e 3 . D a ily a v er ag e s an d d a ily av e r ag e differe n ces betwee n B r onx a n d Manhattan:

PM 2.5 (TE O M)

....................................................................................................................... 6 6

F i g u r e 4 . D a ily a v er ag e s an d d a ily av e r ag e differe n ces betwee n B r onx a n d Manhattan:

PM 10 (TE O M)

....................................................................................................................... 6 7

F i g u r e 5 . D a ily a v er ag e s an d d a ily av e r ag e differe n ces betwee n B r onx and Manhattan:

particle count

................................................................................................................. ........ 68

F i g u r e 6 . D a ily a v er ag e s an d d a ily av e r ag e differe n ces betwee n B r onx a n d Manhattan:

pH

............................................................................................................................. ............. 69

F i g u r e 7 . D a ily a v er ag e s an d d a ily av e r ag e differe n ces betwee n B r onx a n d Manhattan:

sulfate

........................................................................................................................ ............ 70

F i g u r e 8 . D a ily a v er ag e s an d d a ily a v er ag e differe n ces betwee n B r onx a n d Manhattan:

or ga nic car bon

................................................................................................................. ...... 71

F i g u r e 9 . D a ily a v er ag e s an d d a ily av e r ag e differe n ces betwee n B r onx a n d Manhattan:

elem ental carbon

............................................................................................................... .... 72

Figure 10. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

iron

........................................................................................................................... ............. 73

Figure 11. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

nickel

......................................................................................................................... ............ 74

Figure 12. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

total po lle n

................................................................................................................... ......... 75

Figure 13. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rences b e t w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

tree po llen

.................................................................................................................... .......... 76

Figure 14. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

grass pollen

................................................................................................................... ........ 77

Figure 15. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

ragwee d pollen

................................................................................................................. ..... 78

Figure 16. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

total m o ld

..................................................................................................................... ......... 79

Figure 17. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

basidi ospores

.................................................................................................................. ....... 80

Figure 18. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w een B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

ascos p ores

..................................................................................................................... ........ 81

vFigure 19. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

m itospore s

..................................................................................................................... ........ 82

Figure 20. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

dar k m itospores

................................................................................................................ ..... 83

Figure 21. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

non-da rk m i tospores

............................................................................................................ .. 84

Figure 22. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

m o ld sp or es < 10 μ m

............................................................................................................. 85

Figure 23. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rences b e t w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

m o ld sp or es > 10 μ m

............................................................................................................. 86

Figure 24. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

acetone

........................................................................................................................ .......... 87

Figure 25. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

acetaldehyde

................................................................................................................... ....... 88

Figure 26. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

form aldehyde

................................................................................................................... ..... 89

Figure 27. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

hydroc hlor ic acid

.............................................................................................................. ..... 90

Figure 28. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rences b e t w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

nitrous aci d

................................................................................................................... ......... 91

Figure 29. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

nitric acid

.................................................................................................................... .......... 92

Figure 30. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

am m onia

........................................................................................................................ ........ 93

Figure 31. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

ozone

.......................................................................................................................... ........... 94

Figure 32. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

sulf ur

di oxi de

................................................................................................................. ....... 95

Fi gu re 3 3

. Dai l y ave r ages an d d a i l y ave r age di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x and M a n h at t a n:

nitroge n dioxide

............................................................................................................... ..... 96

Figure 34. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

nitroge n oxi de

................................................................................................................. ...... 97

Figure 35. Daily ave r ages and daily ave r ag e di ffe rence s bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n:

total nitrog e n oxi des

.......................................................................................................... .... 98

Figure 36. M u ltidim ensional scaling res u lts: all seas ons com b ined

........................................................... 99

Figure 37. M u ltidim ensional scalin g res u lts: Janua r y–Marc h

.................................................................. 100

Figure 38. M u ltidim ensional s caling res u lts: April

– June

........................................................................ . 1 0 1

viFigure 39. M u ltidim ensional scalin g res u lts: July–S eptem b er

................................................................. 102

Figure 40. M u ltidim ensional scalin g res u lts: Oct obe r–Decem ber

............................................................ 103

Figure 41. Hiera r chical clustering res u lts: all seas ons c o m b ined

............................................................. 10 4

Figure 42. Hiera r chical cluste ring res u lts: Ja nuary

– Marc h

...................................................................... 10 5

Figure 43. Hiera r chical clus tering res u lts : Apr il–June

......................................................................... .... 106

Figure 44. Hiera r chical cluste ring res u lts: Ju ly–Septe m b er

..................................................................... 10 7

Figure 45. Hiera r chical clusteri ng res u lts: Octobe r

– Dec e m b er

................................................................ 108

Figure 46. Day of wee k a v erages: PM 2.5 and PM 10 (T E O M)

................................................................... 109

Fi gu re 4 7 . H our of day a v er ages: PM 2.5 and PM 10 (T E O M)

.................................................................... 110

Figure 48. Day of wee k a v erages: partic le c o unt

................................................................................ ...... 111

Figure 49. H our of day a v er ages: pa rtic le count

................................................................................ ....... 112

Figure 50. Day of wee k a v er ages: pH

............................................................................................ .......... 113

Figure 51. Day of wee k a v erages: s u lfate

....................................................................................... .......... 114

Figure 52. Day of wee k a v erages: orga nic carbon and el em ental car bon

................................................. 115

Figure 53. H our of day a v er ages: orga nic ca rbon a n d elem ental carbon

.................................................. 116

Figure 54. Day of wee k a v erages: partic ulate m e tals

............................................................................ ... 117

Figure 55. Day of wee k a v erages: t o tal po llen

.................................................................................. ....... 118

Figure 56. Day of wee k a v erages: tree

, gra ss a n d ra gweed polle n

........................................................... 119

Figure 57. Day of wee k a v erages: t o tal m o ld

.................................................................................... ....... 120

Figure 58. Day of wee k a v erages: asc o s p ores , basidi ospor e s a n d m i tospores

......................................... 121

Figure 59. Day of wee k a v erages: dar k a n d non-dar k m itospores

............................................................ 122

Figure 60. Day of wee k a v erages: sm all and lar g e m o ld s p ores

............................................................... 123

Figure 61. Day of wee k a v erages: acet one , acetalde hyde and form aldehyde

........................................... 124

Figure 62. Day of wee k a v erages: hydroc hloric acid

............................................................................. .. 125

Figure 63. Day of wee k a v erages : nitrous acid a n d nitric acid

................................................................. 1 26

Figure 64. Day of wee k a v erages: am m onia

....................................................................................... ..... 127

Figure 65. Day of we e k a v erages: oz one

......................................................................................... ......... 128

Figure 66. H our of day a v er ages: oz one

......................................................................................... .......... 129

Figure 67. Day of wee k a v erages: s u lf ur

di oxide

................................................................................ ..... 130

Figure 68. H our of day a v er ages: sulf ur dioxide

................................................................................ ...... 131

Figure 69. Day of wee k a v erages: nitric oxi de, nitroge n dioxide and t o tal nitr oge n oxides

..................... 132

Figure 70. H our of day a v er ages: nitric oxi de , nitr oge n dioxide and t o tal nitrogen oxides

...................... 133

vi iv iiiSUMMARY

Thi s rep o rt c o m p ares am bi ent l e vel s of cert a i n ha zar do us ai r p o l l u t a nt s, c r i t e ri a pol l u t a nt s, a n d bi oae r os ol s i n

t w o Ne w Yo rk C i t y nei g hb o rho o d s t h at ha ve di f fe re n t rat e s o f h o s p i t a l adm i ssi ons f o r ast h m a and di ffe re nt

socio-econom i c status characteristics. C h em ical and biol ogical analytes were chose n for this study based on

existing inform ation s u ggesting t h at e x pos u re t o t h ese a n alytes m ay be related to acute a sthm a exacerbations.

In add itio n to d a ta o n m a n y co mm o n l y m easu r ed ch em ical air p o llu tan t s, inform atio n was co llected on

several c o m pon ent s o f ai r b o r ne part i c ul at e m a t t e r t h at ha ve not pre v i o usl y been assesse d f o r t h ei r p o ssi bl e

association with asthm a exacerbations . The prim ary goal was t o assess whether am bient air quality diffe re d in

two New York City lo catio n s

. A sep ara te rep o rt p r esen ts th e resu lts o f th e analysis ev al u a ting th e effects o f

vari ous air c o ntaminants on acute a sthm a exacerbations.

The st udy m easured 24-hour average am bient air concent r ations of acet one, aldehydes, chrom i u m , iron,

ni ckel , m a nga nese, hy dr o g en i o n, s u l f at e, p o l l e n an d m o l d s p o r es. O n e

- hour a v e r age co ncen t r at i o ns wer e

m easured f o r

oz o n e, sul f u r di oxi de, ni t r o g en o x i d e s , n u m b er o f part i c l e s m easuri n g 0. 00 7 t o 2. 5 m i crom et ers,

part i c ul at e m a t t e r < 2. 5 m i crom et ers (PM 2.5 ) a n d part i c ul at e m a t t e r < 10 m i crom eters (PM 10 ). Thr e e -hour

avera g e c o ncent r ations we re m easure d for elem ental and o r ga ni c ca rb o n

. T h e h o u r l y dat a we re used for

cal cul a t i ng dai l y ave r ages , m a xim u m conce n t r at i o ns a n d f o r o z o n e, ei g h t

- hour m ovi ng ave r a g es.

M e t e orol ogi cal dat a (t em perat u re, wi n d spee d a n d di rect i o n, h u m i di t y ) were al so col l ect ed . Am bi ent ai r dat a

were col l ect ed f r o m one si t e i n M a nhat t a n f r om Jan u ary 19 99 t h r o u g h No vem b er 20 0 0

, fr om one si t e i n t h e

Br on x fr o m Janu ar y 1 999 thro ugh A ugu st 19 99 an d fr o m a secon d nearb y site in t h e Bron x fr o m Sep tem b e r

1 999 thro ugh Nov e m b er 200 0

.

Statistical analyses com p aring am bient air c once n tration s b e tween th e B r on x an d Manh attan sites were

co ndu cted u s i n g a p a ired t-test ad ju sted for au to co rr elation. Com p arisons were m a de on a seas onal basis

(q uart e r l y ) an d f o r

t h e e n t i r e st udy pe ri o d . M e a n l e vel s o f fi ne pa rt i c ul at e m a tt er, pa rt i c ul at e aci di t y

,

part i c ul at e s u l f at e, pa rt i c ul at e ni c k el , aci d ga ses, am m oni a, sul f ur di oxi de a n d ni t r o g en o x i d es we re

sig n ifican tly h igh er in Manh attan th an in t h e Bron x ov er th e en tir e stud y p e r iod . Mean lev e ls o f o z on e,

rag w ee d pol l e n an d g r ass p o l l e n were si g n i f i cant l y hi ghe r i n t h e B r on x. St at i s t i cal t e st s had p o w e r t o det ect

sm a ll m ean diffe rences because of large sam p le sizes . The r efore, although seve ral m ean com p arisons were

si gni fi ca nt l y di f f ere n t , t h e a b sol u t e di ffe rences i n anal y t e c once n t r at i o ns bet w ee n t h e t w o si t e s we re general l y

not la rge

. For exam ple, for m o st com p arisons, t h e high er m ean was n o m o re tha n a b out 1. 6 -fold l a rge r t h an

the lower m ean, and m any of the significant m ean diffe r ences we re less tha n 1.2-fold.

9Most of t h e variables we re c o rrelat ed (Pearso n r > 0.6 ) over the en tire st u d y period b e tween th e Manh attan

an d Bro n x sites. In g e n e ral, lo w co rrelatio n s were d u e to a few ou tliers. Weak co rrelatio n s b et w een th e t w o

sites were found for particle count, ir on, nickel , acetone and non-dark m itospores.

Ex pl orat ory t e m poral a n al y s es of cert a i n air contam inants were c o nducted. PM 10 and PM 2.5 , orga n i c car bo n

and el em ent a l carbo n were eval uat e d by t h e ho ur a n d day of wee k

. B o t h si t e s e xhi bi t e d a dai l y t e m poral

p attern in PM 10 and PM 2.5 lev e ls. Lowest lev e ls were seen i n th e m i d d l e o f th e n i gh t (2 A

. M .) . Th e hi ghest

lev els were seen i n th e m o rn in g, with a sm aller p eak in t h e ea rly eve n ing. Particulate m atter ele m ental carbon

conce n t r at i o ns pea k e d at 9 A

. M . at bo th sites. Th e p a rticu l ate org a nic carbon fraction increased m ode stly in

co n c en tration fro m early in th e m o rn ing to a h i gh i n th e ev en ing fo r Manh attan

, wh ereas th e B r onx o r g a n ic

car bon lev e ls r e m a in ed near ly con s tan t thr o u ghou t th e d a y. A cet on e, elem en tal car b o n

, n itr ogen ox id es, PM 10

and pa rticulate Fe we re the only va riables showi n g a noticeable day-of-week t r e n d, with som e what lowe r

daily m eans on Sundays, i n creasi n g throug h th e week to Th u r sd ays.

Two m u ltiv ariate statistical p r o cedures (m u ltid i m en sio n al scalin g and h i erarch ical cl u s ter analysis) were used

i n ex pl o r at o r y a n al y s es o f asso ci at i o ns am ong chem i cal anal y t es wi t h i n eac h sam p l i ng si t e . V e ry ro b u st

pat t e rns o f cl ust e ri n g am on g vari a b l e s were no t obse r ved i n t h ese a n al y s es, b u t som e m odest associ at i o ns

were fo und

. Ozo n e tend ed to b e n e g a tiv ely asso ciated with all o t h e r an alytes, p a rticu l arly d u ri ng th e co l d

weathe r m onths. T h e stronge st positive as sociations te nde d to be betwee n or am ong va riables m easuring

closely related c h em ical species. That is , all nitrogen ox id e v a riab les tend ed to cl u s ter t o g e th er, tw o d i fferent

measures of s u lfur dioxide were cl osely associated a n d pa rticulate m a tter v a riab les ten d e d to b e closely

associated with each ot her.

Large r cl ust e rs o f a n al y t es va ri ed s o m e what by seaso n

, but i n gene ral

, ni t r o g e n oxi des, sul f u r di o x i d e

,

ele m en tal carb o n and so m e m e tals ten d e d to form a relativ ely con s isten t agg r eg ation o f v a riab les. A seco n d

ag greg atio n u s ually in clud ed th e p a rticu l ate m a tter v a ri ables, som e aldehy des, orga nic ca rbon, s u lfate a n d in

som e instances inorga nic acid m easures. Patterns of as soci at i o ns am on g a n al y t es di d n o t di ffe r not i cea bl y

b e tw een th e Br onx and Man h a ttan

.

CONCL U S I ON S A N D RECOM M E ND AT IO NS

Am b i en t air qu ality m easu r ed wit h roo f t o p m o n ito rs at t w o lo cation s i n New York City fou n d t h at, for m o st

analytes, either t h e t w o sites di d not differ or m ean air lev e ls were h igh er at th e Manh attan locatio n th an at t h e

Bronx location. Analyte m eas u r e m en ts fro m b o t h lo cation s were su bj ect to larg e tem p o r al v a riation s on

hourly, daily, and often seas onal tim e scales. When st atisticall y d i fferen t av erag e po llu tan t lev e ls were

det ect ed bet w ee n t h e t w o l o cat i o ns, t h ey di ffer e d by l e ss t h an t w o f ol d. A v era g e oz one an d p o l l e n l e vel s

t e nde d t o be hi g h er i n t h e B r on x

, wi th m ean di f fere n ces of abou t 3 0 % to 70 % b e tween th e two sites. Th ese

resu lts, rep r esenting app r o x i m a tely two years o f ho urly or d a ily ob serv ation s on nearly three doze n a n alytes

10fro m two lo cation s i n New Yo rk City, p r ov id e a m o re d e tailed ch aracterizatio n of am b i en t air po llu tan t s,

esp ecially p articu l ate m atter co n s titu en t s , t h an h as b e en prev iously reported for a larg e u r b an area. We

r eco mm en d th at f u t

u r e stud ies inv e stig ating am b ien t air po llu tan t ex po su r e s on an urb a n n e ighbo rh ood scale

co llect add itio n a l d a ta to b e tter ch aracterize spatia l v a riab ility o f am b i en t po llu tan t s in urb a n areas,

p articu l arly for no n c riteria po llu tan t s.

1112Section 1

INTRODUCTION

Asthm a is a serious chronic disease t h at in 1999 a ffe ct ed ro ug hl y fo ur pe rcen t of t

h e U

. S. p opu latio n

(app rox i m a tely 1 1 m i l lio n to tal cases of d i ag nosed asth m a with an acu te asth m a ep isod e i n th e prev iou s 1 2

m ont hs). It s pre v al ence ha s been i n c r easi n g ove r t h e p a st f e w d ecad e s ( M an nino et al . 1 998 , 20 02 ; IO M

2000). Lifetim e prevale n ce (i.e., ev er-d i agno sed asth m a) in the Un ited St at es was a p pr oxi m a t e l y 10% i n t h e

1 997 –19 99 Nation a l Health In terv iew Su rv ey, wh ich is co n s isten t with t h e adu lt lif etim e prevalence estim ated

in th e 20 00 Behav i oral Risk Factor Su rv eillan ce Syste m d ata (C DC 200 6). Ast h m a d i sp ro p o rti o n ately affects

African Am erican co mm u n ities, with h i gh er rates of ast h m a e m erg en cy d ep a rtm en t v i sits, asth m a

hos pi t a l i zat i ons a n d ast h m a m o rt al i t y (M anni n o et al

. 20 0 2 )

.

The Ne w York State De pa rtm e nt of Health (NYSDOH) rec e ive d m a ny letters from students, teache r s,

com m uni t y grou ps a n d en vi r onm ent a l or ga ni zat i ons re q u e st i n g a n e nvi r o nm ent a l heal t h i n vest i g at i o n i n t h e

Sou th B r onx . Th e So u t h Bron x is a d e n s ely p opu lated, inn e r-city area with h i gh t r affic vo lu m e , m u ltifa m ily

resid e n tial d e v e lop m en ts an d a v a riety of ind u strial o p e ratio n s . Th e Bro n x is t h e site o f a city water po llu tion

cont rol pl ant

, a sl ud ge pel l e t i zat i on pl ant t h at h a ndl es o v e r 70% o f t

h e ci t y ’s se wa ge sl u d g e, a l a r g e wh ol esal e

fo o d m a rket and di st ri b u t i o n ce nt er a n d m a ny sm al l i ndust r i e s . B r o n x resi dent s an d el ect ed o ffi ci al s r a i s ed

co n cern s th at h i g h asth m a rates in t h e b o roug h were related to am b i en t air p o llu ti o n expo su res fro m th ese

sources

.

As p a rt of th e respo n s e to t h ese con cern s , NYSDOH und ert o ok t o co m p are th e ai r q u a lity in th e So u t h Bro n x

with th at of an o t h e r area i n New York City, and to eval uate pote ntial associations betwee n m easured air

pol l u t a nt s a n d em ergency depa rt m e nt vi si t s fo r ast h m a . The st u d y i n v o l v e d c o nt i n u o u s am bi ent ai r

m o n ito rin g in the Sou t h B r onx an d Manh attan fo r criteria air po llu tan t s, p o llu tan t s catego r ized b y th e U.S.

Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA ) as hazardous air polluta nts (HAPs) and bioae r osols

, incl udi ng pollen

and fungal s p ores . T h e c h em ical and bi ological analytes c h osen for the st ud y w e r e selected b a sed on ex isting

in fo rm atio n su ggesting th at ex po su re to th ese am b i en t air po llu tan t s m a y b e asso ciated with acu te asth m a

exacerbations. In a ddition t o m ass conce n tration, am bien t particulate m atter was c h em ical ly characterized in

term s o f elem en tal an d o r g a n i c carb on fractio ns, acid ity and m e tals co n t en t. Th e st u d y u tilized cen t ralized

m o n ito rin g statio n s th at were exp ect ed to b e rep r esen tativ e o f air qu ality in th e t w o co mm u n ities. Attribu tion

of

m easured pol l u t a nt c o n cent r at i o ns t o s p eci fi c p o i n t s o urces wa s not a

g o al of t h e st udy

, an d t h i s was not

tech n i cally feasib le with t h e typ e of d a ta co llected

.

A co m p ariso n of t h e am b i en t air m o n ito ri n g resu lts fro m th e Sou t h B r onx an d Manh attan m o n itoring sites is

rep o rte d here . A se parate stu d y com p o n ent i nve stigated asso ciation s b etween am b i en t air m o n ito ring resu lts

and ast h m a em ergency

- d e part m e nt vi si t s i n t h e t w o a r eas . Th o s e resu lts are presen ted in Part B of th is rep o r t

.

1314Section 2

OBJECTI V ES

The purpose of t h e st udy was to e v aluate a n d c o m p are am b i en t con cen tratio n s of sev e ral air po llu tan t s i n two

areas of Ne w York City and to eval uate tem poral ass o ciations bet w ee n these air pollutants and ac ute

ast h m a ti c sym p t o m s as m easured by em ergency depa rt m e nt vi si t s fo r ast h m a by resi de nt s i n pa rt s of t h e

Bron x and Manhattan

. Ulti m a tely, th is stu d y sh ou ld co n t ri but e t o t h e bo dy of k n o w ledge about the e ffects of

com pone nt s of am bi ent ai r o n ast h m a i n ur ban a r eas.

Specific objective s were as follows:

1. to eval uate whet her am bient levels of ce rtai n hazardous air poll u tant s, criteria poll u tants or

b io a er o s o ls d if f e r i n t w o N e w York City n e ig hbor hoo ds th at hav e d if f er en t r a tes of h o s p ital ad m issio n s f o r

asthm a and diffe re nt soci o-econom i c status cha r acteristics;

2. t o com put e t h e ove ral l rat e s of ai r-co n t am i n ant

- at t r i but a b l e ast h m a em ergency de part m e nt

visits am ong reside nts of the two com m unities ove r a one- year peri od, a n d test whethe r the m a gnitude of the

air po llu tion effect d iffers in the two co mm u n ities; an d

3. to investigate whic h air contam inants are m o st associate d with ac ute asthm a exacerbations

in each comm unity.

This report focuse s on the first objective —eval uating whet her am bient levels of ce rtain hazardous air

p o llu tan ts, cr iter ia po llu tan ts o r b io a ero s o ls d iff er in t w o N e w Yo rk City n e ighbo rh ood s. Mor e sp ecif ically,

this re port c o m p ares air c o ncent r ations on a seas on al basis bet w een sites and desc ribes the correlation

bet w ee n t h e si t e s f o r t h e ai r c ont am i n ant s , t h e c o r r el at i ons am ong c o nt am i n ant s wi t h i n ea ch si t e , an d t e m poral

co n t am in an t p a ttern s.

1516Section 3

BA C KGR OU ND

Asthm a is a m u lti-factorial disease with a com p licat ed and still not c o m p letely understood etiology and

p h y si o l og ical b a sis. G e n e tic f act o r s and env i r o n m en tal exp o s ures ar e b o t h th ough t to p l ay a ro le in asth m a

devel opm ent . H o we ver, i t has bee n a r gue d t h at t h e r ece nt increase i n asthm a preva l ence has occurre d t o o

rapi dl y t o be t h e res u l t o f ge net i c cha n ges a nd i s t h e r ef o r e ass u m e d t o be l a rg el y d u e t o c h an ges i n

en v i ron m en tal ex po su res (e.g ., R o n c h e tti et al. 2 001 ). Lab o ratory stud ies an d stud ies l o ok in g at hu m a n

p opu latio n s th at h a v e fo und asso ciation s b e tween ai r q u a lity and d i fferen t asth m a o u t co m e s su gg est th at

a m b i en t air ex po su res m a y b e on e im p o r tan t factor influ e n c ing asth m a m o rb id ity.

Am bi ent ai r con t am i n ant s , i n cl u d i n g oz o n e, su l f ur

di oxi de, ni t r oge n di o x i d e, aci d part i c ul at es (hy d ro g e n i o n )

,

sulfates, PM 2.5 and PM 10 , t o t a l pa rt i c ul at es, wo o d sm oke a n d bi oae r os ol s (p ol l e n a n d fu n g al s p o r es)

, have al l

been ass o ciated with i n creased a sthm a sym p to m s (Bom an et al. 2003; B r unekree f an d Ho lg a t e 200 2 ; Bu rn e t t

et al. 1994; C o mmittee of t h e E n vironm ental and Occ u p a tion a l Health Assem b ly o f th e Am erican Th oracic

So ciety 19 96 ; Dales et al. 20 0 0 ; Delfino et al. 1 996 ; Gav itt and Koren 2 001 ; Ped e n 200 2 ; Schwela 2 000 ).

Evaluating t h ese as sociations for i ndi vi d u al co nt am i n ant s , h o w e ve r, is com p licated by t h e tem poral

correlations am ong ai r c ontam inants and weathe r factor s. A detailed re view of the epi d em iological literature

on t h e rel a t i ons hi p bet w ee n am bi ent ai r pol l u t i on an d ast h m a m o rbi d i t y i s bey o n d t h e sc o p e of t h i s rep o rt

.

Howe ver, brief exam ples of ass o ciations betwee n am bient air c o ntaminant expos u res and ast h m a m o rbidity

are di scusse d bel o w.

PARTICULATE MATTER AND OTHER AE ROSOLS

M a ny epi d em i o l ogi cal st udi es ha ve s u gge sted t h at inc r eases in particulate air contam inant levels ca n ca use a n

in cr ease i n acu t e asth m a tic ep isod es ( s ee D o cker y and Pop e 1994 f o r r e v i ew ). C u rr en tly, th er e is no

agreem ent am ong sci e nt i s t s as t o w h et he r a speci fi c cha r act eri s t i c o r c o m pone nt of PM i s res p o n si bl e f o r t h e

o b s erv e d h ealth effects. Am o n g th e po ssi b ilities p r opo sed are th e ph ysical ch aracter istics of t h e p article or

droplet (e.g., its size, s h a p e or de nsity), t h e num ber of particles prese n t (i.e ., particle num ber), its s u rface a r ea,

surface c h em istry, surface c h arge or aci dity. T h e s p ecific c h em ical makeup of t h e particle or droplet is also

th ou gh t to po ten tially con t ribu te to h ealth effects (e.g ., elem en tal o r org a n i c carb on , vo latile o r g a n i c

com pounds, s u lfates, nitrates , a n d m eta ls such as i r o n

, cadm i u m , cobal t , c o pp er, m a nganese, ni ckel , l e a d

,

titan i u m , v an ad i u m , zin c). Also of i n terest are p articles of b io l o g ical o r i g in

, su ch as fung al spores an d po llen.

The c o nsistent fi nding of i n crea sed res p iratory e ffects as sociated with inc r easing PM across areas with wi dely

d if f e r ing typ e s of PM su ppo r ts t h e h ypo th esis t h at m o r e th an on e typ e o f PM m a y b e cap ab le o f pr odu cing t h e

obs erved effects. Inform ation about th e potential for each of t h e various co m p onents of PM to worse n ast h m a

o r

produ ce o t h e r resp i r ato r y sym p to m s is in co m p lete.

17Diesel exha ust particulates (DE P ) m a k e u p a sign ifican t portio n of t h e PM 10 in New Yo rk City (N YSD E C

1995). Diesel exhaust pa rticles are ge nerally com pose d of an elem ental carbon c o re that m ay have a va riety of

orga nic com pounds, m e tals, trace ele m ents, sulfates and n itrates ass o ciated with its surface . St udies looki ng at

D E P expo sur e and su bsequ e n t expo sur e t o r a gw eed have associated i n creased allergic re sponse with

in cr eased D E P expo sur e ( D iaz- Sanch e z et al. 1997 ). St u d ies in ro d e n ts h a v e r e po r ted in cr eases in airw ay

hy pe r- resp o n si ve ness an d i n fl am m a t i on f o l l o wi n g DEP a n d al l e r g en ch al l e nge . T h ese res pon ses we re

repo rted to b e greater th an tho s e ob serv ed with eith e r DEP or a n tige n c h allenge alone (Ta k ano et al.1998;

Miyab a r a et al. 19 98 as r e f e r e nced in U.S. EPA 20 02 ).

Sev e ral m e ta ls th at can b e asso ciated with p a rticu l at e m a t t e r have bee n fo u n d t o a ffect l u n g f u nct i o n,

i n cl udi ng c h r o m i u m

, m a nganese a n d ni ckel

. Ni c k el com p o u n d s ha ve bee n ass o ci at ed wi t h occ u pat i onal

asthm a and can als o act as a prim ary irritant (Age ncy for T o xic Subst a nces and Disease Regist ry 1995).

C h r o m i u m com poun ds have bee n a ssoci at e d wi t h occu pat i o nal ast h m a and d ecreases i n f o rce d e x pi rat o ry

vol um e at 1 seco n d (FE V 1 ) a n d fo rced e xpi rat o ry fl o w (A ge ncy f o r

T oxi c Su bst a nc es a n d Di sease R e gi st ry

19 9 3 ) . M a n g a n ese c o m pou n d s ha ve been re po rt ed t o ca use an inflammatory response in the l u ng and

redu ction s in lung fun c tio n, an d th ere h a s b een so m e ev id en ce of resp iratory effects in resi d e n tial pop u l atio ns

near fe rr om anganese fact ori e s ( A ge ncy f o r To xi c Su bst a nces a n d Di sea s e R e gi st ry 1 9 9 2 )

.

Bo th n itrou s and su lfu r ic acid s can b e presen t in am b ien t air a s acid aeros ols, a n d st rong acids suc h as these

are k nown irritan t s. Nitrou s aci d is an irritan t th at is cap ab le of produ cing sym p to m s in asth m a t i cs (WHO

20 0 0 ) . S u l f uri c aci d, al t h o u g h a rec o gni ze d i r r i t a nt a n d co rr osi v e at hi g h c once n t r at i o ns

, has not

, by i t s el f

,

b een fou n d t o sign ifican tly affect l u ng fun c tio n at env i ro n m en tally relev a n t co n c en tration s . Natu rally

occurri ng amm onia in the res p irator y system is ab le to n e u t ralize so m e in h a led acid s , redu cing th e

o ppo rt u n ity fo r acid i c p articles to co ntact tissues

. Howe ver, if aci d ae ros o l concentrations are elevated, or if

u n d e rlyin g resp i r atory cond itio n s d i m i n i sh th e system ’s ab ility to n e u t ralize acid s , t h e p o t en tial fo r respi r atory

irritatio n m ay b e in creased.

Ai r b o r ne bi ol ogi cal pa rt i c l e s, o r bi oae r o s ol s, car ry pr ot ei n al l e r g en s a n d i n fl am m a t o ry agent s (s uch as β -1,3­

gluca n s) that ca n c o ntribute to asthm a exacerbations in se nsitized patients. The c o mm on allerge n bioaerosol s

in am b i en t air are po llen and fung al spores. In a st ud y of ast h m a sy m p to m s an d air qu ality in So u t h e rn

C a l i f or ni a, Del f i n o et al

. ( 1 997 ) f o un d t h at exp o s u r e t o f ung al spor es ad ver s ely aff ected respirat ory status as

in creased ast h m a sy m p to m s , in h a ler u s e, an d red u ced p e ak exp i ratory fl o w rate. An earlier stud y b y Delfin o

et al. (1 996 ) fo und th at p e r s on al o z o n e and f u ngal e x pos u res we re as sociated with inc r ease d asthm a

sym p t o m s and i n hal e r use

. Hi g g i n s et al . ( 2 000 ) re p o rt e d that i n crea sing s pore c o unts we re ass o ciated with a

d r op in m ean p eak exp i rat o ry fl ow an d an in crease i n its v a riab ility. Th ese eff ects were rep o rted ly g r eater

whe n oz one levels we re elevate d pri o r t o t h e inc r ease i n th e spore co un ts. Dales et al. (20 0 0 ) repo rted th at

18increases in asc o m y cete spores in air were associated with a 2.8% inc r ease in pediatric em ergency de partm e nt

v i sits fo r asth m a . Dales et al. (200 0) also repo rted t h at inc r eases i n basidi om yce t e spores i n air we re

associated with a 4.1% inc r ease in pe di at ri c em ergency dep a rt m e nt vi si t s fo r ast h m a . Se nsi t i zat i on a n d

expos u re to grass pollen a r e ris k factors for ast h m a prevale n ce a n d exacerbations (e .g., Sc happi et al. 1999;

Soria n o et al. 1999; Basa gana et al. 2001).

GASES

Short-te rm expos ures to high c once n trations of sul f ur dioxide in laborat o ry settings have produce d respi r atory

sym p tom s (decrease i n m ean FE V 1 , i n crease in s p ecific ai rway resistan ce , wheezi ng and short n ess of breath)

i n heal t h y an d ast h m a t i c subject s (e. g

., Li n n et al

. 19 8 4 a, b; H o rst m an et al . 1 9 8 6

, 1988; Heat h et al

. 1 9 9 4 ;

G ong et al. 19 96 )

. Ep i d em io lo g i cal stud ies lo ok i n g at p opu latio n s expo sed to su lfur d i ox id e as p a r t o f th e

am bi ent p o l l u t a nt m i xt ure ha ve rep o rt e d m i xed re sul t s

, pe rhap s d u e t o t h e p rese n ce of ot her p o l l u t a nt s ha vi n g

si m ilar effects on h ealth (Sch wela 200 0) .

Results from health e ffect st udies of e x pos u re t o n itro g e n d io x ide are no t co nsisten t. Ho wev e r, relativ ely h igh

co n c en tration s of NO 2 h a v e b e en sh own to in crease b r on ch ial reactiv ity, and i n sev e ral stud ies th ey h a v e b een

shown to e nhance t h e response t o aeroallergens whe n e x pos ures t o the gas and t h e allergen occur within a

sho r t t i m e fram e (Schwel a 200 0 ; Je nki ns et al

. 1 9 99; D’Am ato et al. 2002; B r une k ree f a n d Hol g ate 2002).

In co nt rast t o t h e ot her gase o u s p o l l u t a nt s st udi e d

, l a b o rat o ry a n d epi d em i o l ogi cal st udi es of oz one ex p o su re

consistently show increases i n re spirat ory sym p tom s and a va riety of m easures of a sthm a exacerbation as

ozone c o ncent r ations inc r ease (Sc h wela 2 0 00; Pede n 2 0 0 2 ; We i s el et al

. 1 995 ) . In ad d i t i on, st ud i e s l o o k i n g at

com b ined or seque n tial exposures t o o z on e and allerg en s h a v e no ted an enha nced res p irat ory res p onse

com p ared with eithe r e x pos ure alone (D’Am a to et al. 2002; Je nki ns et al.1999). Thes e studies m ay indicate

th at o z o n e ex p o su res cou ld create con d ition s with in th e resp iratory system th at m i g h t lo wer th e thresho l d o f

effect fo r allerg en s or i rritants.

Alde hydes (e.g., acetalde hyde , ac rolein

, form aldehyde, propionalde h yde ) repr ese n t a class of HAPs that c oul d

negat i v el y a ffect ast h m a t i c s. Form al dehy de has bee n rep o rt ed t o i n d u ce ast h m a i n s o m e i ndi vi d u al s e x p o sed

i n occ u pat i o nal set t i ngs (e .g ., F e i n m a n 1 9 8 8 )

. Ac ut e, sm all decreases in res p irat ory function (FE V 1 ) have

b een repo rted after fo rm ald e h y d e expo su re i n o c cu p a tion a l setting s (e.g ., Alex and e rsso n et al. 1 982 ). St u d i es

o f

asth m a tics su g g est th at they m a y n o t b e sensitiv e t o form ald e h y d e at co n c en tration s b e l o w tho s e seen i n

o ccup a tion a l settin gs (e.g., Harv i n g et al. 19 8 6 ). Oth e r ald e h y d e s h a v e no t b een as well stud ied

, an d po ten tial

in teractio ns o f al d e h y d e s with oth e r am b i en t con t am in an ts h a ve no t b e en ex p l ored. Leik auf et al. (1 995 ) po in t

o u t t

h at recen t ep id em io lo g i cal stud ies sug g e st t h at p o llu tan t in teraction s m a y p o t en tiate resp i r atory

responses.

19ASTH M A A N D AI R POLLU TA NTS IN NEW YO R K CITY

A limited nu m b er of stud ies h a v e inv e stig ated th e asso ci ation of air contam inants w ith ac ute ast h m a attacks in

New Y o r k C i t y . T h urst on et al

. (1 9 9 2 ) st udi ed t h e rel a t i o nshi p bet w ee n h o spi t a l a d m i ssi ons f o r a s t h m a (and

al l respi r at ory a d m i ssi ons) a n d am bi ent aci di c part i c ul at e m a t t e r and oz one co nce n t r at i o ns du ri n g t h e s u m m er

in three re gi ons in Ne w York State. T h e researche r s di d no t h a v e air con t am in an t d a ta fo r New Yo rk City, an d

t h ey use d am bi ent ai r dat a fr om t h e l e ss u r ban i zed s u b u r b s . Th ey foun d t h at hi gh er c o ncent r at i o n s of oz one,

aeros ol st r o ng aci di t y ( h y d r o g e n i o n) a n d sul f ate we re ass o ciated with inc r eases i n ast h m a ad m i ssions in the

su mm er in Bu ffalo and New York City. Howev e r, th ey fo und the ass o ciations we re weake r i n Alba ny and the

l e ss u r ba ni zed Ne w Y o r k C i t y su bu r b s. Thi s m a y be due , i n pa rt , t o s o m e chem i cal or phy si cal di ffe rence i n

th e co m p o s itio n o r m i x o f air con t am in an ts in th e m o re d e n s ely p opu lated areas.

I n an o l d e r stu d y cond u c ted in N e w Yo rk , Gr eenbu rg et al. ( 1964 ) d id n o t f ind an asso ciatio n b e tw een

e m ergency clinic visits for asthm a and s u lfur diox ide

, ca rbon m onoxide

, or coe fficient of haze during

Sept em ber an d Oct o be r. G o l d st ei n an d D u l b er g ( 1 9 8 1 ) al s o fo u n d n o si g n i f i cant rel a t i ons hi p b e t w ee n hos pi t a l

e m ergency de partm e nt visits and s u lf ur di oxide or coe fficient of haze m easurem ents during t h e late s u mmer

an d ear ly f a ll. Jam a so n et al. ( 1997 ) fo und an asso ciatio n b e tween asth m a h o s p ital ad m i ssio n s and air

pol l u t i o n i n New Y o rk C i t y du ri n g t h e s p ri n g an d s u m m er seasons b u t not du ri ng fal l a n d wi nt er. A rece nt

stu d y o f asth m a h o s p italizatio n s and am b i en t su lfur d i ox id e m o n itoring d a ta in New York City foun d a

co nsisten t po sitiv e asso ciation b e tween su lfu r d i ox id e ai r lev e ls and risk of asth m a ho sp italizatio n i n ch ild ren

,

after a d justing for race, age an d season (Lin et al. 2004).

Co n s i d eri n g th e lim i t ed in form at io n av ailab l e reg a rd i n g am b i en t air po llu tan t s and asth m a in New York City,

and consi d ering t h e state of the scien ce on sp ecific air po llu tan t s and asth m a in g e n e ral, a b e tter

characte r ization of those ai r contam inants that m a y be associated with ac ute asth m a attacks is neede d . This

st udy sel ect e d a set o f c h em i c al and bi ol o g i cal fact o r s t h at hav e bee n s h ow n o r are t h ou g h t t o ha ve t h e

pote n tial to a g gravate asthm a and are l i k el y t o be prese n t i n ur b a n ai r. The t y pes of fact ors assesse d wer e

gases a n d vap o r s (S O 2 , O 3 , NO 2 , NO, N O

x an d a lim ited rang e o f vo latile o r gan i c co m p ou n d s), p a rticu l ates,

part i c ul at e c o m pone nt s (i ncl u d i n g s u l f at e, m e t a l s , carbo n a n d hy d r o g en i o n) an d bi o aer os ol s ( p ol l e n a n d

fungal spores). T h ese c h em ical and biological age n ts were m easured in am bient air i n two Ne w York City

l o cat i ons , t h e So ut h B r o n x and M a n h at t a n, o v er a peri od of n early two years. Av era g e air levels of the

measu r ed po llu tan t s and p a tterns o f ch ang e i n p o llu tan t lev e ls ov er tim e were co m p ared b e tween th e t w o

sites.

20Section 4

METHODS

SAMPLING LOCATIONS

Two n e igh b o r h ood sam p lin g sites —I .S. 1 5 5 i n th e So u t h Br onx and Mab e l Dean Bacon Schoo l in Low e r

Manhattan—we re selected for the study (Figures 1 an d 2) . Th ese t w o m oni t o ri ng si t e s we re l o n g -st a ndi n g

,

EPA-approv ed air qu ality m o n ito ri n g sites op erated b y New Yo rk State Dep a rtm e n t o f En v iron m en tal

Conse r vation (N Y SD EC) fo r ce rtain c r iteria air p o llutant s. They we re located appr oxim a tely 6.7 m iles apart.

The a d e quacy o f t h ese m oni t o ri n g si t e s was eval uat e d by Li ppm an ( 1 99 8) . H e c o n c l u ded t h at bot h m oni t o ri ng

si t e s were “ve r y wel l si t u at e d as re gi o n al ur ban si t e s.” He fu rt he r st at ed , “In fa c t

, as ur ba n m oni t o ri ng si t e s

go , t h e s e t w o cu r r e n t l y have fe wer c o m p l i cati ng fact or s related to top ograph y , m aj o r tho r ou ghfares, m aj o r

co nstru ction or d em o lit io n sites, etc., t h an m o st sites.”

Partway t h ro ug h th e pro j ect, a ch an g e in sam p lin g lo cation in th e B r onx was n ecessary d u e to a co n s tru c ti o n

pr o j ect at IS 155

. Wor k i n g wi t h EP A, N Y S D EC a n d th e New York City Sch o o l C o n s tru c tio n Au thority, a

n e w site was estab lished at M.S. 52 (6 81 Kelly Street) i n t h e S out h B ro n x . A s wi t h t h e ot her m oni t o ri ng si t e s,

this site was eval uated a n d a p proved by E P A as a n acce ptable site. M.S. 52 is approxim ate l y 0.5 m iles

no rt heast o f I .S. 1 5 5 . Sam p l i ng occu rre d at I.S . 1 5 5 f r o m Jan u a r y 1 999 thro ugh Augu st 199 9, an d at M.S. 5 2

f r o m Sep te m b e r 1 999 thro ugh N o v e m b er 200 0 (Figu r e 1)

. Th e Manh attan site at t h e Mab e l D ean Baco n

Scho o l ( a lso k nown as Manh attan Co m p r e h e nsi v e N i gh t and Day H i gh Scho o l )

, r e m a in ed th e sam e d u r i ng t h e

stu d y p e r i o d ( J anu a r y 19 99 t h r ough No v e m b er 2 000 ). Sam p lin g h e igh t i n Manh attan w a s appro x im a tel y

sev e n stor ies and appr ox im atel y f o ur sto r ies in th e Bron x.

Sam p l i ng eq ui pm ent was set up b o t h o n ro oft o p s a n d i n do or s. Som e out do o r e qui pm ent had cl i m at eco n t r o lled hou sing un its (d escr i b ed b e l o w) . A g lass m a n i fo ld attach ed t o th e bu ild i n g’s ex terior p r ov id ed

am bi ent ai r t o eq ui pm ent o p erat i ng i n do or s. A t t h e Bro n x l o catio ns, t h e m an i fo ld’s i n let was situ ated at

app r oxi m a t e ly t h e sam e sam p l i ng hei ght a s , an d l o cat ed with in 15 feet of, th e ro oftop instru m e n t s.

M a nhat t a n ’ s m a ni fol d was l o cat e d a p pr oxi m a t e l y 10 feet hi gh er t h a n

, an d 30 feet fr om , t h e ou t d o o r sam p l i n g

equi pm ent

.

QU ALITATIV E EN VI RO NME N TAL A N D EC ON OM IC IN FO RM ATIO N

I n f o r m atio n on th e pop u lation size, hou sing stock, tr a ffic c h aracteristics and num b er an d t y pe s of b u si nes s es

was co llected for th e two co m m u n ities. In form at io n sou r ces in clu d ed th e U.S. Cen s u s Bureau, NYC Tran sitM T A, Ne w Yor k State a n d New Y o r k City De partm e nt s of Motor Ve hicles, NYSDEC pe rm its and the EPA

Tox i c Release Inv e n t o r y. Th e inform atio n was u s ed on ly as p a rt o f a q u a litativ e d e scrip t i o n and co m p ariso n

21of t h e t w o com m uni ti es wi t h re spect t o br oa d cl asses o f pot ent i a l ai r p o l l u t i o n s o urces . T h e st u d y desi gn di d

not i n cl u d e a det a i l e d a n al y s i s o f p o l l u t a nt poi nt s o u r ces, m obi l e so urces o r s o urce ap p o rt i onm ent

.

AN ALYTI C AL METHO D S

A b r ief d e scrip t i o n of th e an alytical m e th o d s for am b i en t air an alytes fo llows. Details, in clu d ing qu ality

assu ran c e and quality co n t ro l pro t o c o l re feren ces, are p r o v i d e d in App e nd ix 1.

PM 10 an d PM 2.5

Two TE OM ® Se ries 1400a Am bient Particulate Monitors (R u p p rec h t an d Pat a sh ni ck C o

., Inc ., Al bany

, NY )

were de pl oy e d at eac h l o cat i o n

, one m easuri n g PM 10 and th e oth e r m easu r in g PM 2.5

. H o urly av e r ag e d a ta

were l o gge d by t h e i n st r u m e nt s an d do w n l o ad ed wee k l y by pr o j ect st af f. A su p p l e m e nt al sy st em was at t ached

to th e PM 2.5 units at eac h l o cation for the m easurem ent of m e tals (descri b ed bel o w).

FRM PM 10 and PM 2.5

Twe n t y -f ou r- ho u r part i c ul at e sam p l e s we re collected for gravim etric m easure of PM 10 and P M 2.5 usi n g

Fede ral R e fer e nce M e t h o d (FR M ) p r ot oc ol s. PM 2.5 was co llected u s ing R & P 20 25 sequ en tial sam p lers with

WINS im pactors

. PM 10 sam p l e s we re c o l l ect ed usi n g Wed d i n g hi gh -vol um e sam p l e rs wi t h 8

- by 10

- i nch

q u a rtz filters.

Pa rticle Numb er

A TSI M o del 2 022A con d e n s ation cou n ter w a s u s ed to m easu r e th e t o tal nu m b er of airbo r n e p a r ticles

bet w ee n 0. 00 7 a n d 2. 5 m i crom et ers i n di am et er. The T S I i n st r u m e nt det ect s an d c o unt s pa rt i c l e s usi n g an

opt i cal d e t ect or. A com put er l i n k e d t o t h e c oun t e r l o gge d dat a a n d dat a we re do w n l o a d ed on ce pe r week

.

H ou r ly and d a ily ( 24

- hour ) av er ag e v a lu es w e r e calcu lated

.

Org a ni c an d E l eme n t a l

C

a rbo n

A Se ri es 54 0 0 Am bi ent C a rb on Pa rt i c ul at e M o ni t o r (R up prec ht & Pat a s hni ck C o

., I n c.

, Al ba ny

, NY ) was

use d for the m easurem ent of organic and elem ental carbon. The i n strum e nt uses a direct t h erm a l-CO 2

m easurem ent t o p r o v i d e a n i n d i rect m easure o f t h e am ount of ca r b o n i n t h e col l ect ed PM 2.5 sam p le. The

fraction v o l atilized o r ox id ized to CO 2 betw een 25 0 ° C and 3 40 ° C was con s id ered th e vo latile o r g a n ic

fract i o n, a n d t h e am ount o x i d i zed t o C O 2 betw een 34 0 ° C and 75 0 ° C wa s c o nside r ed the elem ental carbon

fract i o n. Sam p l e s anal y zed by t h e i n st r u m e nt rep r ese n t e d t h ree

- hour ave r a g es. The i n st r u m e nt rep o rt s dat a t o

0. 1 μ g/ m 3 . The res u l t s we re l o g g e d by t h e i n st r u m e nt and d o w n l o a d e d weekl y

.

Meta ls

An R&P Accu System was in stalled on th e TEOM co llectin g PM 2.5 an d used t o co llect p a rticu l ate on filters for

24 hours each day (m idnight to m i dnight) for m e tal analysis. The sam p les (filters) were gathere d eac h week

22an d bro ugh t to t h e labor ato r y. Th e sam p les w e r e an al yzed at t h e Wads wort h La boratory using i n ductively

con d u ct i v e pl asm a /m ass spect r o m e t r y (IC P/ M S ). T h e f o l l o wi ng m e t a l s t houg ht t o have a pos si bl e r e l a t i onshi p

with ast h m a exacerbation or re spirat or y irritancy, base d on exi s ting inform ation, we re incl ude d i n t h e a n alysis

(d etection limits): Cr (5 n a nog ram s / m 3 )

, Fe (2 2 ng /m 3 )

, Pb (1 2 ng /m 3 ), M n (3 n g /m 3 ), Ni ( 4 ng/m 3 ) and Z n ( 7 7

ng/ m 3 ).

Acid Aero so ls, A m mo nia, a n d Acid Ga ses

Daily sam p les were c o llected on filters a n d de nuders to c h a r acterize fi ve reactive gases (NH 3 , H C l, HNO 2 ,

HN O 3 , a n d S O 2 ) , part i c ul at e (PM 2.5 ) s u lfate an d pH ( U .S . E PA M e tho d I O -4.2). T h e five gases we re n o t par t

of

t h e ori g i n al st udy pl an an d w e re analyzed for only approxi m a tely one year of the study. Sam p les re present

24-hour ave r a g es. Sam p les were collected on a UR G-200 0 -01J We e k l y Ai r P a rt i c ul at e Sam p l e r (UR G

,

Ch ap el Hill, NC ). Th e g a ses were co llected o n d e nud er s and t h e aeroso ls on a Zeflour filter supp orted b y a

PTFE -coate d stainless steel scree n . Ion chrom atography was used to m easu r e con c en tration s . Th e d e tection

li mits fo r th e v a riou s an alytes were NH 3 ( 0

. 19 m i crog ram s /m 3 ), HCl (0 .1 0 μ g/ m 3 ) , H NO 2 (0.16 μ g/ m 3 ) ,

HN O 3 (0 .1 0 μ g/ m 3 ), and S O 2 (0.18 μ g/ m 3 ).

Particu l ate n itrate was orig in ally in cl u d e d i n th e an alyt e list b u t was later d r opp ed du e t o co n c erns ab ou t th e

accuracy of the re ported concent r atio ns. During the study, res earc h was publis hed that called into question

p a rticu l ate n itrate con c en tratio ns co llected o n Teflon filters, esp ecially at h i g h er tem p eratures (U.S. EPA

1 999 ). Th e p articu l ate n itrate sam p les were co llected on Teflon filters, and tem p eratu r e m easu r em en ts m a d e

in sid e t h e sam p ler en cl o s u r e f o r abou t on e m o n th sh ow ed a h igh r ead ing o f 108 ° F

. Beca u s e th e s a mp le r w a s

serv iced o n l y o n ce p e r week

, sam p les co llected after serv icin g were po ten tially su bj ect to m o re h i gh

te m p erature peri ods t h an those c o llected j u st prior to serv icin g, li k e ly in creasi n g th e po ten tial fo r p a rticu l ate

n itrate vo latilizatio n

. Th is info rm atio n

, along wit h in co n s isten c ies foun d in th e con cen t r atio n s of so m e co

lo cated sam p les, led to t h e rem o v al of particulate nitrate from the analyte list.

Bio a e ro so ls

B i oaero s ol sam p l e s f o r

en um erat i on of p o l l e n a n d fu n g al sp or es were col l ect ed i n t o t h e wi nd o n a dhe si vecoat ed t a pe t h at was m ount e d o n a cl oc k

- dri v e n dr um i n si de a l o w

- vol um e sam p l e r (B ur ka rd se ven

- day

recordi n g s p ore tra p ). T h e cl oc k allowed a seve n-day

, n on-in tegrated, tim e-o r d ered sam p le to b e co llected

.

Aft e r rem oval o f t h e dr um , t h e t a pe was sect i o ned i n t o se ven eq ual part s, m ount e d on m i croscope sl i d es,

st ai ned a n d vi ewe d m i crosco pi cal l y . B i oaer osol res u l t s we re r e po rt ed a s dai l y (2 4-hour) a v er a g es.

Pol l e n a n d fu ng al sp o r es were cat eg ori z e d i n t o se ve ra l large (i n s o m e cases overla ppi ng) groups for statistical

an alyses, b ased o n taxo no m i c an d / or m o rpho log i c sim i larities. Fo r po llen

, th e categ ories were tree, grass,

ragweed

, and to tal p o llen. For fun g al spores, the cat e g o r i e s w e re basi di os p o res , asc o s p o r es, da r k col o r

23m i t o spore s

, n o n

- da r k m i t o spore s , sm al l spores (< 1 0 m i crom et ers i n t h e l a rgest di m e nsi on) , l a r g e sp ore s (> 1 0

m i crom et ers i n t h e l a r g est di m e nsi on) a n d to tal spo r es (see Append ix 1, Tab l e A1).

A cet one an d A l dehy des

An aut o m a ted sam p ler was used in t h e c o llection of daily (24-hour a v era g e) sam p les for acet one and al de hyde

analysis, accordi n g to U.S. EPA Method T O -11. T h e an alytes m easured we re acet one , acetalde hyde , ac rolein,

benzal dehy de, b u t y ral d e h y d e , cr ot o n al d e hy de, 2, 5- di m e t h y l benzal dehy de, fo rm al dehy de, he xal d e h y d e

,

i s oval e ral d e h y d e, p r o p i o nal d ehy d e, m

- t o l u al de hy de

, o-t o l u al de hy de

, p-t o l u al de hy de an d val e ral d ehy d e.

Detectio n lim it fo r each was 1 μg /m 3 . Du ri n g th e st ud y, q u estion s were raised abou t th e v alid ity of th e

acrol ei n dat a from t h i s m e t hod d u e t o p o o r reco very a n d po ssi bl e di m e ri zat i on of t h i s a n al y t e o n sam p l e

cartridg es.

Criteria Po lluta nt Ga ses a n d Other Nitrog en Ox i d

es

SO 2 , N O , N O 2 , NO

x and O 3 were m easured by E P A

- app r o v ed m e t hods (40 C F R C h apt e r I Pa rt 5 0 a n d DEC

web pa ge, w w w

. dec.st at e. ny .us/ we bsi t e / d ar/ r e p ort s / 9 9a nn rpt / 99a r _m t d.ht m l ). Data fo r all o f th ese an alytes

w e r e an alyzed on an ho ur ly an d d a ily (2 4- h our) av er ag e b a sis. O 3 was al so anal y zed on an e i ght -hour m o vi n g

av erag e b a sis, fo llowing th e Nation a l Am b i en t Air Qu ality Stan d a rds calcu lation algorith m (4 0 CFR Ch ap ter I

Part 50; see bel o w )

.

M

e t

e orol o g i c al D a t a

Tem p erat ure, rel a t i v e hum i d i t y , wi n d s p eed an d wi n d di rect i o n we re l o g g ed f r om a r oof-m ount e d

meteo r o log ical statio n at each site. Th e un it lo gg ed t h e d a ta f r o m w ind m o n ito r Mod e l 0530 5 and r e lativ e

hum i d i t y and t e m p erat ure p r obe M o del 4 1 372 LC (R .M

. Y o un g C o

. , T rave rse C i t y M I)

.

DAT A Q U ALITY

Data clean i n g b e y o nd t h e q u a lity assuran ce an d q u ality con t ro l pro t o c o l s d e velop e d for th e in stru m e n t s was

con d u ct ed t o en s u re t h at dat a i m port a t i on ha d bee n c o r r ect l y im pl em ent e d. A n y obse r vat i ons ass o ci at ed wi t h

k nown in stru m e n t m a lfu n c tio ns (e.g

., p o wer lo ss or i n correct ai rflow) were m a rke d as rejected. T o ide n tify

m o re su b tle p o t en tial rep o rtin g pro b l em s with th e po llu tan t s, tim e series p l o t s o f so m e po llu tan t s were

ex am in ed fo r u nusu a l ob serv ation s o r ab no rm al flu c tu ation s . Differen ces b e tween th e two sites were

calcu lated

, and th e d a ta fo r tim e p e riod s with larg e d i f f ere n ces we re fu rthe r in vestigate d

. Scree n in g c r iteria

were d e v e lop e d to id en tify ob serv ation s th at requ ired revie w . Ob s e r v atio ns w e re f u rt her exam ined fo r data

q u a lity if an y o f t

h e fo llowing ob tai n ed :

• a v a lu e was co n s i d ered a statistical o u tlier (i.e., m o re t h an two stan d a rd d e v i ation s fro m th e

mean);

• t h e dat a di d not fol l o w p revi ous p a t t e rns o ft e n i d e n t i fi e d fr om i n spect i o n of g r ap hs o f t h e dat a ;

or

24• an u n u s u a l tren d in th e d a ta was foun d (e.g., a l o w v a lu e ev ery th ird d a y).

Possi ble causes of suc h observations we re e xpl ore d

. If inst rum e nt err o r (e .g ., ai rflo w o r tem p erature o u tside

specifications) was not determ ined to be t h e ca use, the da ta were ass u m e d to be acc urate; othe rwise, the result

was m a rked as s u s p i c i o us. S u spi c i o us and r e ject e d o b ser v at i o ns were rem ove d f r o m t h e dat a set an d n o t

in clu d e d i n an y d e scri p tiv e statistics or an alyses.

STATISTI CAL A NAL YSI S

Summa ry Sta tistics

Su mm ary statis tics were co m p iled for each p o l l u tan t at

eac h site. For sulfate, alde hydes

, a n d m etals,

o b s erv a tio ns b e low th e li m it o f d e tection were estim a t ed at h a lf th e d e tectio n limit. No no n-d e tects o c cu rred

for the ot her chem ical analytes. Bioaerosol sam p les whe r e non-detects occ u rred we re e n tered as zeros. T h e

su mm aries in clu d e d m ean , stand a rd d e v i atio n

, sam p le p e rcen tiles, sam p le size (N), nu m b er of su sp iciou s

results (SR) , num ber of re jected res u lts (RJ), n u m b er o f ob serv ation s b e low detection limit (LT), nu m b er o f

o b s erv a tio ns p r esen t b u t less th an d e tectio n limit (P L) a n d n u m b er of m i ssi ng ob servat i o n s . D e t a i l e d dat a

summ aries for all a n alytes are p r o v i d e d i n A p p e ndi x 2.

Anal y t i cal chem i s t r y resul t s we re rep o rt e d as o n e

- hou r

, t h ree-hour o r 2 4 -hour t i m e -wei ght ed a v era g es

(T WA), de pending on the sam p ling m ethodology for eac h a n alyte. The r efore

, s u m m ary statis tics for each

anal y t e co ul d be cal c u l a t e d fo r u p t o t h ree a v era g i n g t i m es (24

- hour

, seas o n al an d t h e e n t i r e st udy peri od ). I n

th e presen tatio n of resu lts, da ily m e an r e fe rs t o 2 4

- hou r ave r age s f r o m ei t h er 2 4 -hour t i m e-wei ght ed -average

sam p l e resul t s o r f r o m averagi n g h o u rl y or t h ree

- hou r T W A o b se rvat i o ns acr o ss 2 4 -hour i n t e rval s. Seasona l

mea n is u s ed to refer to ob serv ation s av erag ed ov er three-m o n t h in terv als (d escrib ed b e low) an d overall me an

is use d to re fer t o observations a v era g e d over t h e en tire st udy peri od. Seasonal a n d ov er all su mm ar y statist ics

were calculated from daily m eans.

Explorat ory a n alyses were conducte d for all analyte data sets to ev al u a te wh et h e r th e d i strib u tion sh ap e for

each was a p proxim ately norm a l. Distributions we re ch a r acte r ized i n form ally us ing histogram s and norm al

probability plots. The Anders on-Da r li ng goodness

- of-fit test for t h e no rm al distribution wa s use d t o form ally

test d i stribu tio ns for th eir d e v i ation fro m n o r m a lit y (D’Augo stino and Stev en s 198 6 ) . Si nce statistical

com p ari s on s were o f m eani ngf ul l y pa i r ed obse rvations , the differe n ces be t w een pai r ed observati ons we re the

d a ta su bj ected to statistical an alysis. Alth oug h d i fferen c e s bet w ee n pai r e d obse r vat i o n s t e n d e d t o de vi at e f r om

no rm al it y , based o n fo rm al goo d n ess-of

- f

i t

t e st s, t h ei r di st ri but i o ns de vi at ed l e ss f r om n o rm al it y t h an di d t h e

ori g i n al obse r vat i o n s a n d we re gen e ral l y sy m m et ri c and bel l

- shap e d

, si m i l a r t o a no rm al di st ri but i o n.

Th erefo r e, it was felt th at, sin c e th e t

- an d F-tests are ro b u st t o devi at i o ns f r o m t h e no rm al it y assum p t i on (e. g

. ,

Neter et al. 1990), these tests could be ap pl i e d t o no n

- t r an sf orm e d di ffe rences

.

25Site Co mp a r isons

Analyte air c o ncent r ations in the t w o com m unities were com p ared using daily (24-hour) m e a n a n alyte levels

an d d a ily m a x i m u m an alyte lev e ls at th e Man h attan and B r o nx sam p lin g sites. Ho urly ob serv ation s or threeho u r a v era g e ob ser v at i o ns (el e m e nt al and or gani c ca r b o n va ri abl e s) we re a v era g e d t o get h er o n a 2 4 -hour

basi s t o o b t a i n d a i l y ave r a g es. A dai l y m a xim u m val u e was i d e n t i f i e d fr om ho url y an d t h ree-hour a v e r a g e

obs ervations if at least 75% of t h at day’s hourly (t hree -hou r ) o b s er vat i o n s were avai l a bl e. Dai l y m a xim u m

com p ari s on s were n o t m a de for t

hose v a ri abl e s col l ect ed o n l y o n a dai l y ( 24-hour) a v e r age basi s

.

For o z o n e, m ovi ng ei g h t

- h o u r ave r a g es were cal cul a t e d f r om t h e o r i g i n al h o u r l y obse r vat i ons by ap pl y i ng t h e

EPA National Am bient Air Quality Standa rds (NAAQS ) guidelines for e v aluating m ovi ng eight-hour

avera g es a g ai nst t h e ei ght -h o u r am bi ent ai r st an dard. E i g h t

- hour m o vi n g a v era g es f o r oz on e w e re a ssi g n ed t o

t h e fi r s t h o u r of t h e ei g h t

- h o u r wi nd o w

. If si x o r m o re ho u r l y o b ser v at i o ns were val i d f o r

a n ei g h t

- hour

segm ent , t h e no n

- m i ssi ng o b ser v at i o ns were ave r a g ed; i f less t h an six but at least one hourly observa ti on was

v a lid f o rth e eigh t- hour seg m en t, missin g v a lu es w e r e estim ated at h a lf th e d e tection lim i t ( 0 .00 2 / 2 = 0

. 00 1 )

and al l ei g h t val u es were ave r a g ed; i f no ne of t h e ei g h t o b se rvat i o ns we re val i d , t h e ei ght -hour a v e r age i s

m i ssi ng. T w e n t y -f ou r-ho u r a v era g e oz on e c once n t r at i o ns wer e cal cul a t e d f r om t h e ori g i n al h o u rl y a v era g e

dat a

. Dai l y m a xim u m hourl y o z o n e o b ser v at i o ns were ba sed o n ori g i n al h ourl y a v e r age dat a an d o n ei g h t

ho u r m ovi n g -av e ra ge dat a

.

There wa s s ubsta ntial seasonal variation for m a ny anal ytes in t h e stud y, so seaso n a lly stratified statistical

analyses as well as unstratified analyses were pe rf o r m e d. The dat a we re di vi de d i n t o ei ght seaso n al

categories:

• W i n ter 199 9 : Janu ar y 1– Mar c h 2 0

• Spri n g 19 9 9: M a rc h 21 –J une 2 0

• Sum m er 19 99: J u ne 21 –Se p t e m b er 2 2

• Fall 1999: Se ptem ber 23–Decem ber 21

• W i nter 2000: Decem be r 22, 1999–Mar ch 19

• Spri n g 20 0 0: M a rc h 20 –J une 1 9

• Sum m er 20 00: J u ne 20 –Se p t e m b er 2 1

• Fal l 20 0 0 : Se pt em ber 2 2–N o v em ber 2 2

The a n alytes we re m easured at the sam e times for the sa m e d u r ation at each site. Fo r th is reason , th e po llu tan t

d a ta fo r th e t w o sites were con s id ered p a ired d a ta. Daily diffe re nces were calculated and a n alyzed for eac h

analyte. The m ean differe n ces were c o m puted seas onally and for the entir e stud y p e r iod . Th e an alyses o f th e

d a ily d ifferen ces u s ed p a ired t-tests with an auto co rrelation adjustm e nt. The va riance of the di ffe rences is

ad

ju sted to accoun t fo r th e no n-ind e pende n ce of aut o correlated tim e-seri es dat a . T h e a d j u st m e nt gi ven by

Gilb ert (198 7), tak i ng t h e sam p le va riance a s a n estim ator of the po pu latio n v a rian ce, is as follows:

262 

### s d 2 

### ⎡ 2 n

− 1 

### ⎤

s ˆ

d 

### = ⎢ 1 + 

# ∑ ( n

− l ) ρ l 

### ⎥

n ⎣ n l

= 1 

### ⎦

whe r e 

### s d 2 is the ori g inal sam p le variance of t h e di ffe rences, 

### s ˆ

d

2 is th e adju sted sam p le v a rian ce of t h e

diffe re nces, n is th e sam p le size, l is the la g distance betwee n t w o ob ser v atio ns in t h e ser ies an d ρ l is th e

autoc o rrelation coe fficient for la g l

. Th e adju stm e n t was ap p lied assu m i n g th at th e on ly con t ri b u tion t o th e

sum com e s from statistically signi fica nt aut o correlation c o effici en ts. Th at is, if t h e first m autoc o rrelations are

si gni fi ca nt (a nd t h e r ef o r e n – m au to co rr e l a tio n s a r e no t sign ifican t), th en for l > m, ρ l = 0.

Daily diffe re nces were calculated for daily ave r a g e a n d f o r

dai l y m a xim u m hou r fo r t hose co nt am i n ant s wi t h

h our ly d a ta an d d a ily thr ee- hour m a x i m u m f

o r carb o n m easu r es. For p o llu tan t d a ta co llected ho ur ly, d a ily

m a xim u m s were ge nerat e d f o r day s co nsi d ered 75 % c o m p l e t e . Dai l y di ffe ren ces of t h e m a xim u m s were

analyzed seas onally in the sam e way as daily m ean differe n ces, using a pair ed t-tests adju sted fo r

au to co rrelatio n

. Detailed resu lts o f all statistical co m p arisons, a n alyzed for th e en tir e st u d y per iod an d b y

season, a r e pres ente d in Appendices 3 a n d 4, res p ectively.

Th e relo cation of th e B r onx m o n ito ri n g site d u ri ng th e stud y bro ugh t in to qu estion wh eth e r th e two Bron x

sites were sufficien tly si m ilar in th eir represen tation of lo cal ai r q u a lity th at th eir resu lts co u l d b e co m b in ed

.

Th is q u e stio n led t o an ad d itio nal an alysis to ev alu a te t h e co m p arab ility o f the two l o catio n s in term s o f air

q u a lity. A d i rect co m p ariso n o f Bron x Site A with Site B was no t po ssi b l e b ecau s e d a ta cou l d no t b e co llected

at the two places sim u ltaneously. Inst ead, data from each site were com p ar ed with data for the c o rres p onding

p e ri o d at th e Manh attan lo cation u s i n g an adj u sted p a i r ed t-test to t r y to con t ro l, at least to so m e ex ten t , fo r

t e m poral di ffe re nces. B y c o m p ari n g t h e rel a t i o nshi p bet w een an alyte lev e ls at th e Manh attan site and th e two

Bron x sites, a qualitativ e assessm en t co u l d b e m a d e as to wh et h e r t h e two Bronx sites p r ov id ed co m p arab le

resul t s rega r d i n g t h e di ffe rence s bet wee n pol l u t a nt l e v e ls i n th e Bro n x and in Manh attan. Howev e r, if

di ffe re nt t re nds we re o b ser v e d i n res u l t s rel a t i n g M a nhat t a n an d t h e t w o B r on x si t e s, i t w oul d not be p o ssi bl e

to dete rm ine whethe r t h ey we re due to diffe r ences in t h e B r o nx m o n ito ri n g sites or to d i fferen ces in th e

relatio n s h ip b e t w een po llu tan ts in t h e Bron x and po llu tan ts in Man h a ttan ov er tim e.

Co rrela tion Between Monito ring Sites.

The c o r r el at i on bet w ee n t h e t w o sam p l i ng si t e s fo r eac h a n alyte was estim a t ed usi n g the Pears o n c o rrelation

coefficient. T h is statistic m easures th e d e g r ee t o wh ich t h e sam e v a riab le at th e t w o sites fo llowed a sim ilar

p attern of flu ctu ation s th roug h tim e, wh et h e r or n o t t h e m ean levels were di ffe rent.

27Co rrela tion Amo n g Po lluta nt V a riab les a t a Monito ring Site.

Non

- m e tric m u lt id i m en sio n a l scaling (MDS) an alysis and c o m p l e t e -l i nka ge hi e r arc h i cal cl ust e ri n g ( H C ) we re

em pl oy ed i n an e xpl orat o r y a n al y s i s t o c h aract e r i ze ass o ci at i ons am ong c h em i cal anal y t es (M ardi a et al

.

1979). Data from each sam p ling site were analyze d se parately. In both analyses , correlation m a trices for 21

p o llu tan t variab les were su m m arized g r aph i cally to exp l ore patterns of as sociations am ong variables

. In both

anal y s es, t h e pH va ri abl e was r eco de d as hy dr o g en i o n c oncen t r at i o n ( b y t a ki n g t h e a n t i

- l og of

– p H), s o t h at

i n creasi n g hy dr o g e n -i o n val u es w oul d i ndi cat e i n c r easi n g c o n c e n t r at i o n, si m i l a r t o t h e ot he r pol l u t a nt

vari a b l e s. Det a i l s o f t h e i m pl em ent a ti on of t h ese t e c hni qu es a r e pr ovi ded i n A p p e n d i x 1

.

Pears o n correlation estim ates were also obtaine d for a ll pairwise analyte c o m b ina tions within each sam p ling

lo catio n as p a rt o f th e i n itial ex p l o r at o r y an alysis of th e d a ta. Th e d e tailed raw Pearso n co rrelatio n m a trices

are prese n t e d i n A ppe n d i x 5.

Temp or al

A n al yses

To ch aracterize th e tem p o r al p a ttern s o f th e p o llu tan t s, data fro m th e en tire stud y fo r each p o llu tan t were

avera g e d on a day-of-wee k basis a n d, wh en app licab le, on an ho ur-o f-d ay basis. Fo r po llu tan t con c en tratio ns

collected m o re tha n once per day, daily ave r ages we re use d fo r day

- of-week t r e nds . Daily avera g es we re

calcu lated for days in wh ich at least 75 % of th e av ailab l e d a ta w e r e co llected. A ll av ailab l e hour ly d a ta w e r e

i n cl ude d i n t h e ho ur -o f

- day a v e r ages

. Day

- of

- w ee k a n d ho ur-of-day a v e r ages ± two s t a nda rd er ro rs we re

pl ot t e d a n d t e m poral pat t e rn s w e re i n fe rre d from t h ese g ra phs

.

28Section 5

RESULTS

QU ALITATIV E EN VI RO NME N TAL A N D EC ON OM IC IN FO RM ATIO N

Th e 20 00 U

. S. Cen s u s d a ta sh ow t h at abou t 1 00,0 0 0 m o re p e op le live in th e Man h a ttan stu dy area th an i n the

Br on x stud y ar ea ( T ab le 1A )

. Th e Manh attan stud y ar ea also h a s abou t 120 ,000 m o r e o c cu p ied ho u s i n g un its,

so t h e av er ag e occu p a n c y p e r housing u n it in th e Bro n x st u d y ar ea is alm o st tw ice th at i n th e Manh attan ar ea

(Tab le 1 B ). Ren t ers i n b o t h co mm u n ities o ccup y m o st o f t

h e hou si n g un its.

Th e nu m b er of m o to r v e h i cles r e g i ster ed in 2 001 w ith th e N e w Y o r k State Dep a r t m e n t o f M o to r V e h i cles is

ab ou t eq u a l b e tween New Yo rk C o un ty (i .e ., M a nhat t a n ) a n d B r o n x C o u n t y (Ta b l e 1C ). A n e v al uat i o n of axl e

co un ts on selected ro ads sh owed th at t h e nu m b er of v e h i cles is abo u t equ a l. B o th co mm u n ities are adj acen t to

m a jor hi gh way s — FDR D r i v e f o r t h e M a nhat t a n st u d y a r ea a n d the Ma jor Dee g an and Br uckner Bouleva r d

fo r t h e B r on x com m uni t y . Al t h o u g h t h e t o t a l am ount of ve hi cl e t r af fi c on t h ese hi g h w ay s i s a b out t

h e sam e

,

FDR Dri v e doe s not allow c o mm ercial traffic while th e Ma jor Dee g an and B r uc kner Bouleva r d are m a jor

co mmercial traffic rou t es. Th e nu m b er o f MTA bu ses i n th e two co mm u n ities is si m i lar b u t t

h e rou t es i n

M a nhat t a n are t r avel e d wi t h great e r fre que ncy

.

Manhattan has one haza rdous waste site on NYSDEC’s New York State Regist ry of Inactive Hazardous

Waste Sites; th e Bro n x h as t h ree. No NYSDEC-p erm itte d waste-h an d l i ng facilities were l o cated in Man h attan

in 200 0, b u t t h er e w e r e 15 in th e B r onx

.

Bo th co mm u n ities h a v e i n du strial sou r ces of urb a n air con tam in an ts. Th e To x ic Release In v e n tory (TRI)

p r og ram track s so m e in d u strial ch em ical emiss i o n s t o th e en viron m en t. TRI facilities are m an u factu r i n g an d

ot he r i n d u st ri al o p e r at i ons re qui re d t o re po rt c h em i cal em i ssi ons o r t r ans f ers t o ai r, wat e r , so i l an d wast e

treat m en t facilities u n d er Section 3 1 3 o f th e fed eral Em erg e n cy Plann i n g an d C o m m u n i t y Rig h t to Kno w Act.

I n 200 0, t w o TRI facilities su b m itted repo rts i n Man h a ttan co m p ared with ei g h t i n th e Bro n x

. Howev e r, th e

to tal q u a n tity o f air em issio n s reported un d e r t h e TRI pro g ram in 20 00 was greater i n Manh attan th an in th e

Br on x ( a pp ro x im a tely 3 0

, 000 poun d s v e r s u s 15,5 0 0 po und s). A ll bu t abou t 6.5 pou nd s of th e Manh attan TRI

r e leases ( i .e., 9 9 .98 % ) w e r e su lfu r ic aci d

. Th e r e m a in d e r i n clud ed less t h an 0.5 pou nd of d i ox in and

di o x i n l i k e com p o u n d s a n d 6 po u n d s of p o l y cy cl i c arom at i c hy droca r bons. Al l t h e M a n h at t a n rel eases were

repo rted fro m a sin g l e facility (Co n s o lid ated Ed is on

, East Riv e r Facility). The o t h e r Man h attan facility

su b m ittin g a TRI rep o rt h a d n o ai r releases in 200 0. Alm o st 9 0 % o f th e B r o n x releases were t r ich l o r o eth ylen e

from a single fa cility (G.A.L. Manufact uri n g Corp.) , wit h the rem a inder c o nsisting of sm all am ounts of

to lu en e, x y len e , zin c , g l yco l ethers an d 1,2,4-trim eth y lb en zen e. Three o f th e eigh t Bro n x facilities su b m itt in g

TRI re p o rts had no air releases i n 20 0 0

.

29A rev iew o f t

h e 2 000 U

. S. Census Bur e au d a ta su gg es ted th at t h e Manh attan stud y ar ea h a d m o r e bu sin e sses

an d th at the typ e s of b u s i n esses d i ffered b e t w een th e t w o co mm u n ities (Tab le 2). In fo rm atio n was no t

av ailab l e to assess wh eth e r b u s i n esses enu m erated in th ese d a ta sou r ces actu a lly rep r esen t activ ities th at

would be ass o ciated with air em issions. For exam pl e, m a ny bu si nesses rec o rd e d as ag ri cul t u ral or

m a nufact uri n g i n t h e C e n s us dat a m a y onl y rep r ese n t co rporate offices

, without si gnifica nt a g ricult ural or

man u f act u r i n g activ ity.

Based on anecdotal NYSDOH staff ob serv ation s , th e Manh attan st u d y area gen e rally h a d taller bu ild ing s and

m o re p e d e st rian and v e h i cu lar t r affic th an th e Bro n x stud y area. Prior to th e st ud y, Manh attan co mm u n ity

me m b ers expres sed conce r n about an electricity-gene r a ting p l an t as an air p o l l u tio n po in t source. Mem b ers o f

th e Bro n x co m m u n i t y ex p r essed con c erns ab ou t im p acts o n air q u ality fro m a larg e sewag e t r eatm e n t facility

(Hu n t s Po in t), ro ttin g pro d u ce at t h e Hun t s Po i n t m a rk ets, an d a sewag e slud ge p e lletizatio n p l an t (New Yo rk

Org a n i c Fertilizer C o ., NYOFCO).

DAT A COLLECTION AND LAB O RATO RY ANALYSIS QUALITY CONT ROL

Data collection was gene rally succes sf ul, despite som e interm ittent equipm ent m a lfunctions. T h e e q uipm ent

t o co u n t pa rt i c l e n u m b er wa s t h e m o st pr obl em at i c and a l a r g e am ount of dat a fr om bot h si t e s was d r op pe d

because it di d not m eet data quality standa rds. In te rm i ttent equi pm ent brea kdowns also cause d loss of

n itrog en d iox id e, n itric ox id e and n itrog en o x i d e s d a ta f r o m th e Bron x ( a nd to a lesser d e gr ee, Manh attan ) fo r

th e w i n t er o f 1 999. D e tails of data co m p leten e ss ar e p r ov id ed in App e nd ix 2

.

So m e ad d ition a l an alytes (h yd roch l o ric aci d

, nitrou s aci d

, n itric aci d an d am mo n i a) were ev alu a ted for a m o re

l i m i t e d t i m e peri o d (a p p r o xi m a t e l y a y ear, fr om June 2 3

, 1 9 9 9 , t o Jul y 11

, 20 0 0 ) . T h e peri od f o r

am m oni a

sam p les was m o re lim ited, from June 23 to August 31, 1999 a n d from Decem ber 29, 1999, t o May 16, 2000.

These a n alytes we re not include d in th e orig in al stud y d e si gn an d were ad d e d t o t h e an alysis as limited

r e sour ces allo wed.

The la boratory analysis for acet one and al dehy des c o uld ha ve m easured up to 14 c o m pounds

. Howe ver, m o st

were ge neral l y bel o w t h e det ect i o n l i m it of 1 m i crog ram / m e t e r 3 and were t h e r ef ore n o t i n cl uded i n t h e

analyses com p aring t h e am bient air le vels in the B r onx an d Manh attan

. A ceton e w a s d e tected in 99 .2 % of th e

sam p les in th e Bron x and 97 .2 % in Ma nhattan. Acetal dehy de was detected in 9 8 .8 % of t h e sam p les in t h e

B r o n x an d 9 8 .2 % i n M a n h at t a n . F o rm al dehy de was det ect e d i n 9 9

. 2 % o f t h e sam p l e s i n t h e B r on x a n d 99 .1%

in Manh attan

. Th e rem a in in g ald e h y d e s were detected i n less t h an 35 % of th e sam p les.

Four of the m etals analyzed were only detected in a limited set of th e sam p les. Ch ro m i u m , man g a n e se, lead

and zinc we re detected i n less t h an 11% of the sam p le s and we re not analyzed furt her . Ir on an d ni c k el we re

30d e tected i n en o ugh sam p les to allo w co m p ar iso n b e t w een th e t w o sites. I r o n w a s d e tected in 77 .7 % of t

h e

sam p les in th e Bron x and 79 .7 % in Manh attan

. Nick el was d e tected i n 6 6 .8 % of t h e sam p les in th e Bro n x and

74 .1 % i n M a nh at t a n.

CO MP ARI SO N O F AMBIEN T AIR Q UALIT Y

Th e co m p ariso n s d e tailed in th is secti o n con s id er t h e two B r onx sites as on e; th e approp riaten ess o f th is

t r eatm e nt i s di scu ssed i n t h e ne xt sect i o n.

The daily ave r age air c o ncentrati o n da ta are g r aph i cally su m m arized in Figu res 3 to 35 . Th e t o p p a nel in each

fi g u re sh o w s t h e val u es fo r t h e B r o n x an d M a n h a t t a n m oni t o ri ng si t e s an d t h e l o we r panel sh o w s t h e

d if f e r e n ce in con c en tr ation b e tw een t h e two sites ( M anh a ttan

– Br onx). A n e g a tiv e nu m b er in th e l o w e r p a nel

indicates that the a v era g e c o nce n tration wa s greater in t h e B r onx o n th at d a y. Gen e rally th e data fo r th e two

sites lo ok q u ite sim ilar in m o st fig u res. Daily con c en tration s at b o t h si tes v a ried sub s tan tially, with ran g e s

oft e n vary i n g by 1 0 -f o l d o r m o re. Som e anal y t es (e. g

., p o l l e n, f u ngal sp ore s

, oz one , s u l f ur

di oxi de) sh o w ed

m a rked seas onal va ri at i on. M a ny c o nt am i n ant s had n o c o nsi s t e nt t r e n d s h o w i n g hi g h e r l e vel s i n o n e sam p l i n g

area or t h e ot he r. Fo r ot he r c o m pou n d s, h o wev e r, t h e t r e n d is co nsisten tly h igh er in on e l o catio n. Fo r in stance,

o z on e w a s f a ir ly co n s isten tly h igh er in t h e Br onx (Figu r e 31 )

, w h er eas n itro g e n d iox id e w a s h igh er i n

Man h a ttan ( F igur e 33 ).

Th e d a ily av erag e resu lts fo r p a rticu l ate m a tter are presente d i n Ta ble 3. T w o size fractions (less t h an 2.5

m i crom et ers an d l e ss t h an 1 0 m i crom et ers) we re m easured , eac h by t w o di ffe re nt m e t hods. I n al l cases t h e

o v e rall m ean co n c en tration was h i g h e r at t h e Manh attan m o n ito ring site than at th e B r onx m o n ito ri n g site.

The di f f ere n ces i n c once n t r at i o ns ra nge d fr om 3% t o 1 1 % . Th e di f f ere n ces i n m ean val u es u s i n g t h e t w o

m e t hods are d u e t o se veral fact o r s, i n cl u d i n g d i f f ere n ces i n ho w t h e m a ss i s m easured, m i ssi ng dat a f o r one

m e t hod b u t n o t t

h e ot her a n d sl i ght va ri at i ons p o ssi bl y d u e t o di ffe rences i n l o cat i o n of t h e ai r i n t a kes. I n m o st

seasons, t h e c o ncent r ation of PM 2.5 was si gni ficantly greater i n Ma nhatta n. Sim ilarly, significant differe n ces

in seaso n al resu lts were also gene rally o b ser v e d fo r PM 10 m easure d with the aut o m a ted m a ss m easurem ent

m e t hod. H o weve r, t h i s was n o t ge ne ral l y t h e case fo r m easurem ent s m a de usi n g t h e FR M . T h e FR M PM 10

col l ect ed dat a o n l y o n ce e v e r y si xt h day an d so ha d l e ss st at i s t i cal powe r t o di scern a g i ve n d i f f ere n ce

b e tween sites than th e au to m a ted m a ss m easu r em en t m e th o d

.

Th e nu m b er of p articles less than 2.5 m i cro m eters was not significantly diff er en t ov er t h e stud y p e r i od at th e

two sites (Ta b le 4). Because of tec hnical problem s, da ta we re not c o llected for winter, s p ri ng and summ er

1 999 , lim it in g particle coun t d a ta t o o n l y fiv e season s.

Resu lts fo r pH, su l f ate and org a n i c an d elem en tal carb o n co n s titu en ts o f PM 2.5 are s u mmarized in Ta ble 5,

and PM 2.5 m etals resu lts are su mm arized in Tab l e 6

. Ov erall, th e pH was slig h tly lower (m o r e acid i c) at th e

31Man h a ttan m o n ito ring site t h an at th e B r onx m o n ito ri n g site. In on ly th ree o f t

h e eigh t st u d y season s was th e

d i fferen ce statistically sig n i fican t, an d th e d i fferen c e was n e v e r statistically sig n i fican t i n th e wi n t er. Ov erall,

su lfate was h i g h er at th e Man h attan m o n itoring site; th e d i fferen ces were statistically d i fferen t in fo ur o f th e

ei ght st

udy seas o n s. O v e r al l , or g a ni c ca r b o n w a s n o t co nsi s t e nt l y di ffe rent bet w een t h e t w o si t e s. Ave r a g e

ele m en tal carb o n con c en tratio ns were slig h tly greater in Man h attan

, althou g h t h e d i fferen ces were statistically

d if f e r e n t in on ly th r e e of t

h e eigh t stud y seaso n s. Ov er al l , i ron c o nce n t rat i ons di d n o t va ry bet wee n t h e t w o

sites. Altho ugh in so m e seaso n s t h ere were sign i f ican t differences, they were not c o n s isten tly in on e d i rection

.

Ov erall, n i ck el was h i gh er at th e Manh attan m o n ito ri ng site. Th e d i fferen ces were statistically d i fferen t in

fo ur o f t

h e ei gh t st

udy sea s o n s.

Po llen cou n t s tend ed to b e h i g h er at th e B r o n x m o n itoring sites t h an at th e Manh attan m o n ito ri n g site (Tab le

7) . F o r ra g w eed p o l l e n a n d gras s pol l e n , t h es e di ffe renc es were statisticall y sig n i fi ca nt over the entire study

peri od , al t h ou gh seas o n al di ffe rence s were gen e ral l y n o t si gni fi ca nt

. Fo r t r ee p o l l e n a n d t o t a l p o l l e n, som e

seasonal m ean com p arisons were statistically significan t, but t h e overall com p aris o n s were no t sign ifican t.

Season al v a riab ility in tree po llen lev e ls d u rin g t h e en tire stu dy p e ri o d was larg e co m p ared with v a riab ility

betwee n the study a r eas, suc h t h at ove r all study m eans were no t sign ifican tly d iff ere n t. T h e va riance e stim ate

for th e ov erall tree p o llen co m p arison was also in crease d co m p ared with th e ind iv i dual sea sonal c o m p arisons

because m o re lag pe riods were incl ude d in the aut o co rrelation a d justm ent for t h e ove rall com p arison. T o tal

p o llen lev e ls were d o m in ated b y t r ee p o llen lev e ls, and t h us site d i fferen c es ov er t h e stud y peri o d in t o tal

p o llen were also no t sign ifican t, d e sp ite sign ifican t s eas onal differe n ces

. All sta tistically significant seasonal

d i fferen ces in tree po llen and to tal pol l e n we re gr eat er i n t h e B r on x.

Ove r all, m ean fungal s p ore levels were no t d i fferen t b e tween t h e t w o s ites (Tab le 8 ) . Th e o n l y statistically

si gni fi ca nt di ffe rence b e t w ee n si t e s f o r t h e ent i r e st u d y peri od was f o r

l a rge s p o r es. O n a seas onal basi s, m o st

mean differe n ces bet w een the sites we re not statistica lly sig n i fican t, and on e site d i d no t h a ve con s isten tly

hi g h er m ean l e vel s am ong t hos e seas o n al com p ari s o n s w h ere si g n i f i c a n t di ffere n ces we re ob ser v e d

.

Ov er t h e en tire stud y p eri o d

, n o statistically sig n i fi cant di ffe rence s bet w ee n t h e m ean conc ent r at i o ns o f

acetone, form aldehyde or acetalde hyde we re found at the two sites (T able 9). Slightly m o re seas onal

d i f f e r e n ces w e r e in t h e d i r ection o f h i g h e r lev e ls in Manh attan th an i n t h e Br onx.

M ean hy dr oc hl o r i c aci d, ni t r ou s aci d, ni t r i c aci d

, den u d er sul f u r di o x i d e an d am m oni a l e vel s al l we re

sig n if ican tly h igh er ov er th e en tir e stud y p e r iod at t h e Man h a ttan m o n ito ring site co m p ared with t h e B r onx

site (Tab le 10 ). Mo st statisticall y sig n i fican t seaso n al m ean di ffe rence s were als o i n the di rection of higher

mean lev e ls in Manh attan fo r these an alytes, wit h th e exce ption of one seasonal di ff ere n ce fo r hy d roc hl o ri c

acid.

32Th e d a ily av erag e resu lts fo r o z on e, su l f ur d iox id e, n itr i c o x i d e

, ni t ro g en di oxi de and to tal n itrog en o x i d e s are

summ arized in Table 11. Mean oz one conce n trations were higher at t h e B r onx m onitori ng site. Mean

conce n t r at i o ns f o r

t h e ot he r p o l l u t a nt gases ov er t h e e n t i r e st u d y pe ri o d were al l si gni fi cant l y hi ghe r i n

Man h attan. Th e sam e p attern of statistically sig n i fi cant differe n ces between th e t w o sites fo r th ese fiv e

analytes was seen on a seas onal basis. All si gni ficant seas onal oz one differences were in t h e direction of

higher m ean levels in t h e Bronx, wh ile h i gh er m ean lev e ls fo r th e su lf ur an d n itrog en ox id e v a riab les were

obs er ved i n M a n h at t a n.

CO MP ARI SO N O F THE TW O DIFFE RENT M ONIT ORI NG SITES IN THE BR ONX T O

MA NH ATTAN

Th e resu lts of th e co m p arison of d a ily avera g e concent r ations for eac h Br on x site to t h e Manh attan site are

summ arized in Tables 12 t o 18. For 24 of 34 analytes, t h e m onitori ng s ite with th e h i gh er m ean was th e sam e

in 1999 and i n 2000. In 10 cases, the direction of the m ean diffe re nce reve rse d between 1999 a nd 2000,

al t hou g h onl y fo ur o f t

h e 10 com p ari s ons t h at reve rse d di rect i o n i n v o l v e d si g n i f i c a n t di ffe re nces i n at l east

one o f t

h e c o m p ari s on s. Al t h ou g h s o m e vari at i on i n t h e relativ e lev e ls o f air con tamin an ts b e tween Bron x and

Man h a ttan was ob serv ed b e t w een th e t w o Bronx sites, stro ng ev iden ce ind i catin g t h at it wo u l d b e

in app r op riate to co m b in e d a ta fro m th e two Bronx sites was no t fo und

.

Correlations we re als o estim ated for corres p onding obse rvations from each Bronx sam p ling location a n d the

Man h a ttan lo cation an d were qualitativ ely co m p ared (Tab le 22). Most correlation s were of sim ilar m a g n itu d e

.

A few pollutants (aceton e, nitrogen oxide s

, PM 2.5 FRM) h a d no tab ly d iff er ent c o rrelation c o e fficients when

com p aring the t w o years. In all cases, a sm all n u m b er o f un u s u a lly h i g h or low ob serv ation s at on e site, no t

paral l e l e d by si m i l a r ext r em e obser vat i o ns at t

h e ot he r site, substan tially lo wered t h e o v erall correlatio n

coefficient. T h is c o rrelational analys is also failed to prov id e stro ng ev id en ce t h at it wou ld b e i n approp riate t o

co m b in e d a ta fro m th e two Bronx sites.

D A I LY MAX I MU M VA LU ES

For PM 2.5 and PM 10 (by a u t o m a t e d sam p l e rs), pa rt i c l e num ber, o r g a ni c a n d el em ent a l carbon

, oz o n e, sul f u r

d i ox id e and n itrog en o x i d e s, m u ltip le m easu r em en ts were m a d e th rou gho u t the d a y, m a k i n g po ssi b l e a d a ily

m a xim u m obser vat i o n (o ne -ho u r o r t h ree-ho u r

, de pe ndi ng o n a n al y t e). O v er t h e e n t i r e st udy pe ri o d , m o st of

the m ean differe n ces i n daily maxim u m value were in t h e sam e direction as for t h e daily avera g es; howe ver,

fewe r of the differe n ces we re statis tically sig n i fican t (Tab le 19). Th e on ly contam inant where the di rection of

the di ffe rence cha n ged between the ove r all m eans an d the daily m a xim u m me ans was orga nic ca rbon. Mean

dai l y m a xim u m organi c ca rb on was sl i g ht l y hi ghe r i n M a n h at t a n f o r t h e e n t i r e st udy peri o d , i n c ont ra st t o t h e

ove rall m ean com p arison for this a n alyte, whic h was sligh tly h i gh er in th e Bronx

. Neith er d i fferen ce was

statistical ly sig n i fican t.

33C O R R EL A TION BETWEEN T H E BRON X AND MAN H A TTAN M O NITOR I N G SITES

Alth oug h d a ily av erag e co ncen tration s m a y b e statisti call y si gni fi cant l y di f f ere n t bet w ee n M a nhat t a n a n d t h e

Bron x, th e d a ily av erag es at t h e sites m a y ten d to fluc tu ate in a sim ilar p attern o v e r tim e. Th is can b e seen

g r aph i cally in Figu res 3– 3 5 . To ev alu a te t h is, correlation s b e tween the two m o n ito ri n g sites were esti m a ted

for each an alyte. Mo st b etween-site correlatio ns were relativ ely stro ng , with correlation estim ates fallin g

below 0.6 for only five a n al ytes (non-da rk m itospores

, form aldehyde , acet one , iron a n d nickel; Table 20).

CORREL A TION BETWEEN DIFFERE N T AIR CO NTAMINANT S WIT H IN MONITORING SITES

Da ily Mea n versus Da ily Ma x i mum

For a n al y t es whe r e a dai l y m a xim u m val u e co ul d be o b t a i n ed

, co rrel a t i o ns of dai l y m a xim u m and dai l y m ean

v a lu es were estim ated with in each sam p lin g lo cation (T ab le 21 ). No t surprising ly

, th e correlation s b etween

dai l y m a xim u m s and dai l y aver age we re fai r l y hi gh . P ears o n r val u es were ≥ 0.85 for all a n alytes exce pt

p a rticle nu m b er. Th is is con s isten t with t h e stron g infl u e n ce of larg e v a l u es on th e arith m e tic d a ily m ean

.

Multid imensio n a l Sca ling

Special tests, refe rre d t o as diagnostics, were incl ude d i n the MDS analyses to e n s u re that m odels of t h e

asso ciatio ns am o n g v a r iab les wer e n o t b a sed on n o n

- d e gener a te so lu tio n s ( e .g., W il k in son 1999 ; see

Ap pe ndi x 1) . N o ne of t h e M D S sol u t i o n s pr od uce d di ag n o st i c s t h at wo ul d i n di cat e a dege ne rat e m odel

sol u t i o n. Si m i l a r pat t e r n s of associ at i o ns am on g vari a b les were o b se rve d fr om M D S res u lts f o r the tw o

sam p lin g lo catio ns.

St ri ki n g pat t e rn s of va ri abl e s—wi t h p o i n t s very cl ose t oget h er i n t h e M D S pl ot s a n d cl earl y se parat e d fr om

ot he r di st i n ct cl ust e rs —we r e ge neral l y n o t obs er ved ( F i g ures 3 6 –40), al t h o u g h i n m o st con f i g u r at i ons t h e t w o

m easures of s u l f u r di o x i d e ( S O 2 a n d den u d er-SO 2 ) d i d appear closely associated and relatively isolated from

all o t h e r v a riab les. Th is ind i cates a st rong p o s itiv e correlatio n b e tween th ese two v a riab les and a ten d e n c y to

weak o r ne gat i v e c o r r el at i ons o f t

hose t w o wi t h m o st ot he r vari a b l e s. D u ri ng t h e t w o seas onal pe ri o d s

spa nni ng t h e fal l an d wi nt er m ont hs (es p eci al l y Janua ry –M arc h ), oz o n e ( O 3 ) tended to b e wi d ely sep a rated

fro m all o t h e r variab les in th e M D S p l o t s (Fi g ures 37

, 40 ), in dicatin g a st ron g n e g a tiv e correlation with m o st

ot he r pol l u t a nt va ri abl e s d u ri ng t h ose peri o d s. The l a rge n e gat i v e ass o ci at i on bet w een O 3 and m o st ot he r

vari a b l e s d u r i n g t h e s e peri o d s o b sc ure d a n y ot he r pat t e rns o f as soci at i o n am ong t h e rem a i n i ng vari a b l e s.

In t h e c o m b i n ed -seas ons pl ot s ( F i g ure 3 6 ) and t o a l e sser de gree i n t h e s p ri ng a n d sum m er pl ot s (Fi g ur es 38

,

39 ), t w o l o ose a g gre g at i o ns of va ri abl e s ap peare d t o fal l o n op p o si t e s si des o f t

h e fi rst M D S di m e nsi on,

alth o ugh the reso l u tio n of these two agg r eg ation s as d i stin ct cl u s ters was no t stron g

. On e ag greg ation u s u a lly

i n cl ude d al l ni t ro g e n oxi de vari a b l e s (N O, NO 2 , N O X ), SO 2 , d e nuder- SO 2 , elem ental carbon and nitrous acid

(H NO 2 ). The ot her ag gre g at i o n ge neral l y i n cl u d e d th e two p a rticu l ate-m a tter v a riab les (PM 25 , PM 10 ), sul f ate

34(SO 4 -- ), form aldehyde, acetaldehy de, acet on e a n d orga nic ca rbon. Iron (Fe), nic k el (Ni ) , hydroc hloric (HCl)

an d n itric (HNO 3 ) aci ds, hy dro g e n i o n ( H + ) , am m oni a ( N H 3 ) and o z on e (O 3 ) tended to b e less co n s isten tly

asso ciated with eith er of th e two m a in agg r eg atio ns

. As noted a bove, t h ese aggregat i o ns tende d to be

o b s cur e d dur in g th e f a ll an d w i n t er season s, wh en O 3 tend ed to b e stro ng ly n e g a tiv ely asso ciated with all

ot he r vari abl e s.

Hierarchic al Clustering

The HC resul t s (Fi g u r es 41 –45 ) wer e gene ral l y co nsi s t e n t with th e MDS results. In m o st cases, the p airs o f

v a riab les th at cl u s tered tog e th er with t h e lowest d i stan ces (h igh e st co rrelatio n s ) were NO X /NO, P M 25 /PM 10 ,

SO 2 / d e n ude r- SO 2 a n d acetaldehy de/form aldehyde. SO 2 , elem ental carbon, m e tals and NO 2 or NO X were

fre que nt l y cl ust e re d t oget h er at

rel a t i v el y l o w di st ances. S O 4 -- ( e it h e r alon e or clu s ter e d w ith h ydr og en i o n

conce n tration), al dehy des, acetone, orga nic carbon, i n or ga nic aci ds a n d PM varia b les were closely ass o ciated

in sev e ral trees. Esp ecially in th e fall an d wi n t er season s, O 3 t e nded t o di v e rg e fr om t h e ot he r cl u s t e rs

cont ai ni ng al l ot her va ri abl e s at l a rge di st a n ces—i nd i cat i n g st r o ng ne gat i v e a ssoci at i o ns—at bot h sam p l i n g

lo catio n s

.

TEMPORAL ANAL Y SES

Measurem ents for m o st va riables did not vary noticeably by day of t h e wee k (Figures 46, 48, 50–52, 54 –65,

67 , 69 ). PM 10 , acetone, elem ental carbon, NO, NO 2 , N O

x and p a rticu l ate Fe were th e on ly v a riab les showin g a

noticeable day-of-week tre n d, wit h s o m ewhat lower daily m eans on the weeke nds (es p ecially Sundays)

in cr easing du r ing th e week

. D a y- o f-w eek v a r iatio n was sim i lar b e tween t h e two m o n itoring areas.

Ti m e

- o f

- d a y tr end s w e r e m o r e pr ono un ced t h an d a y- o f

- w ee k tr en ds for m a n y o f t

h e an alytes wh er e hou r ly or

t h ree- h o u r-a ver a ge o b se rvat i o n s we re a v ai l a bl e (Fi g ure s 47

, 4 9 , 53 , 66 , 68 ). SO 2 , NO, N O 2 , NO

x , PM 2.5 , PM 10

(aut om ated m a ss m onitors ) a n d, to a lesse r degree, el em en tal carb o n all sh o w ed d a ily p eaks in th e m o rn ing

ho u rs ( a p p r o xi m a t e l y 6–8 A .m .). O 3 sho w ed a tend en cy toward d a ily min i m u m v a lu es at th e sam e m o rn ing

h our s an d a d a ily af tern oon (2 P

. M .) pea k . T h ese t r e nds we re c o nsi s t e nt bet w ee n t h e t w o m oni t o ri n g area s.

Th e tim e-o f -d ay tren ds in hou rly a v era g e part i c l e n u m b er di ffe re d bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a nh at t a n, wi t h

so m e w h at elev ated hou r ly av er ag es i n th e Br onx fr o m m id n ig h t t o 4 A .m ., whereas Manh attan p a rticle cou n t s

d u ring t h o s e h ours were so m ewh at lower th an d u ring t h e rest of t h e d ay (Fig ure 49 ). Little ti m e-o f-d ay

vari at i o n was ob ser v e d i n t h ree

- ho u r -av e ra ge o r ga ni c car b o n l e vel s at ei t h er si t e (Fi g u r e 53 ).

Seasonally, the concent r ations of n i t r i c aci d , hy d r oc hl o r i c aci d , am m oni a, and s u lfate were hi gher duri ng

su mm er th an wi n t er. Th e su m m er-win ter ratio s for n itr i c aci d, hy dr oc hl o r i c aci d a n d s u l f at e i n M a n h at t a n

were 3 .9 ,3 .1 and 1. 9, res p ect i v el y . T h e c o ncent r at i o n s of ni t r ous a c i d an d s u l f ur

di oxi de were hi ghe r d u ri ng

win t er th an su mm er; th e su m m er-win ter rati o s in Ma nh attan wer e 0

. 4 8 and 0.44

, r e sp ectiv ely. G a seou s

nitrous aci d was t h e pre d om inant form co m p ared with nitric aci d e x ce pt in sum m e r. The a n nual m ean

35co n c en tration s of PM 2.5 were 1 5

. 2 a n d 15 .5 μ g/ m 3 i n t h e B r on x an d i n M a nhat t a n

, respect i v el y . The m ont hl y

m ean co nce n t r at i o n s i n M a n h at t a n ran g e d fr om 13. 2 t o 21 .7 μ g/ m 3 ; they were hi ghest i n J u ne a n d July a n d

l o west i n M a rch a n d Ap ri l . T h e m ont hl y m ean fract i o n o f PM 2.5 as sul f at e ran g e d fr om 0. 17 t o 0. 3 1 ; t h e

hi g h est f r act i o n val u es we re ob ser v e d du ri n g J u ne–Sep t e m b er.

An analysis of the ai r m on ito ring d a ta for su lfate, SO 2 , H C l , am m oni a, ni t r i c aci d, ni t r o u s aci d a n d PM 2.5 has

been publishe d (Ba r i et al. 2003b).

WIND TR AJ EC TORY A N ALY SES

Alth oug h d e tailed source attribu tion was n o t a fo cu s o f th e stud y d e si g n , t h e data were am en ab le to ev al u a ting

th e relativ e co n t ribu tion s o f lo ng-d istan ce po llu tan t tran sp ort v e rsu s l o cal p o llu tan t em issio n s b y b a ck

trajectory a n alysis. This was a sec o nda ry a n alysis that di d not a p pl y di rect l y t o t h e m a i n o b ject i v e of t h i s

repo rt—t h a t is, t h e air qu ality co m p arison b e tween th e two co mm u n ities.

Air tra j ect ories were used to study t h e e ffect of upwi n d em i ssi ons on t h e o b se rv e d c o ncentrati ons in Ne w

Yo rk C i t y

. Epi s ode s of hi g h co nce n t r at i o ns of chem ical species we re obs erved in both t h e B r onx a n d

Man h a ttan thr o ughou t th e year, althou gh t h ey w e r e m o r e p r o m in en t du r i n g su mm er . Th e h i gh est

co n c en tration s were inv a riab ly asso ciated with th e ai r fl o w from s out hwest t o west of Ne w Y o r k C i t y

.

Three

- ho ur HY S P LI T4 ai r t r a j ect o r i e s were us ed t o a p po rt i o n t h e dai l y m easured co nce n t r at i o ns of seve n

analytes—PM 2.5 , sul f ate, SO 2 , HCl, n itric acid, n itrou s acid and am m oni a—and a s a f

u nct i o n o f di rect i o n

.

Com p arison of the air t r aject ories w ith t h e m easu r ed co n c en tration s sugg ested that a fraction of s u lfate, SO 2 ,

HCl, n itric acid

, and PM 2.5 i s t r an sp ort e d fr om west an d s o ut h w est o f Ne w Y o rk

. Ni t r o u s aci d a n d am m oni a

co n c en tration s app eared un related to the air tra j ectories. Air traject ories we re used t o eval uat e co nt ri but i o ns

fr om t h e regi onal em i ssi on s o u r ces t o t h e ob ser v ed l e vel s o f S O 2 , su l f at e, PM 2. 5, ni t r ic acid and HCl. On an

ann u al basi s, ~ 4 0 % of sul f at e wa s t r a n s p o r t e d fr om t h e M i dwe s t an d ~ 60% fr om nea r by (~ 15 0 km ) sou r ces.

On t h e ot he r ha nd , onl y ~ 14% o f SO 2 , 30% of PM 2.5 , 2 7 % of HC l a n d 24% o f ni t ri c aci d wer e t ra n s p ort e d,

w ith th e r e m a in d e r co m in g f r o m th e n earb y sour ces. D u r ing th e th ird qu ar ter of 19 99 , abou t 26 % and 40 % of

HCl and n itric acid, resp ectiv ely, we re tran sp orted fro m th e d istan t s o u r ces. T h e m odel e d co nt ri b u t i o ns f r o m

reg i o n a l sou r ces an d transpo r t were g e n e rally si m ilar in Man h attan an d th e Bro n x

. Th e co m p lete d e tails are

rep o rte d in Bari et al. ( 2 0 0 3 a)

.

36Section 6

DIS C USSI ON

Most analytes m easured in t h e st udy eithe r did not s h o w a statistically sig n i fican t di ffe re nce bet w ee n l e vel s at

th e Manh attan site and th e Bronx site (m o s t m o ld cate gori e s , i r on , al d e hy des, el em ent a l carb o n a n d o r ga ni c

car bon ) or h a d m ean lev e ls in Manh attan th at wer e sign if ican tly h igh er th an tho s e in t h e Br onx (PM,

part i c ul at e aci di t y a n d sul f at e, ni ckel

, ni t r i c

, ni t r ous a n d hy dro c hl ori c aci ds, am m oni a, sul f ur

di oxi de a n d

ni t ro g e n oxi des) . M e a n l e vel s f o r c e rt ai n ki n d s o f pol l e n a n d oz o n e were si gni fi c a nt l y hi gher i n t h e B r on x

th an i n Man h a ttan.

Th e st u d y ’s large sam p le sizes resu lted in statistical p o w e r t o detect sm all m ean diffe re nces as statistically

si gni fi ca nt , s u ch t h at e v e n s o m e m odest m ean di ffe re nces i n a n alyte conce n trations bet w een the two s ites

were conside r ed “si gnifica nt.” T h e la rgest relative di ffere n ces we re for ozone a n d p o llen, w h er e B r onx m ean s

exceede d Ma nhattan m eans by 30% t o 70% , depe nding on the analyte, a n d for amm onia, nitric oxi de a n d

nickel le vels, whe r e Ma nhattan m eans excee de d Bronx m eans by a b out 30% t o 60%. For all othe r a n alytes,

the relative m ean diffe rence s ove r t

h e e n tire study pe ri od (perce ntage inc r ease of the hi ghe r ove r t h e lowe r

mean) were a b out 25% or less betwee n t h e two sites, and i n m o st cases were le ss than 10%. Nea r ly half

(10/21) of t h e statistically significant m ean differe n ces b e t w een th e t w o sites ov er th e en tire stud y p e riod were

rel a t i v e di ffe rences o f a

b out 10 % or l e ss.

Ev en thou gh t h is stud y was n o t d e si g n e d t o address wh eth e r or no t th ese two co m m u n ities were m eetin g

fed e ral Nati o n al Am b i en t Air Qu ality Stan d a rds (N AAQS), co m p arison s can b e m ad e to prov i d e an

assessm en t o n t h e o v e rall air q u ality. For SO 2 , N O 2 , a n d PM 10 , the v a lu es were well b e l o w th e correspo n d i ng

NAAQS lev e ls in bo th co mm u n ities, as were t h e 2 4 -h o u r av erag e PM 2.5 co n cen tration s

. Ho wev e r, th e ov erall

avera g e PM 2.5 m easured c o ncentrations —14.5 μ g/ m 3 at the Bronx site and 16.6 μ g/ m 3 at th e Man h attan site—

were bo th n e ar t h e an nu al NAAQS lev e l of 1 5 μ g/ m 3 . For ozone, the ei ght -hour m o vi ng average exceede d t h e

NA A Q S l e vel o f 0. 0 8 ppm fi ve t i m es i n B r o n x an d t h ree t i m es i n M a nhat t a n o v er t h e c o urse o f t

h e st u d y

, or

less th an 1% o f t

h e st u d y d a ys. Th ese resu lts cann o t b e u s ed to ev alu a te co m p lian ce with fed e ral air qu ality

st anda rd s, si nce no n

- at t a i n m e nt of t h e N A AQS i n v o l v es co nsi d e r at i o n of a l o n g er m easurem ent peri o d over a

larg er reg i on n o t rest ricted to th ese two co m m u n itie s. Th e US EPA curren tly con s id ers t h e en tire New York

City m e tropolitan re gi on (inc ludi ng the five Ne w York City boroughs, plus a d j acent counties in Long Isla nd,

t h e l o wer H u dso n Val l e y , C o nn ect i c ut a n d Ne w Je rsey ) t o be i n no n

- at t a i n m e nt st at us fo r t h e ozo n e a n d fi ne

p article NAAQS.

One possi ble source of the m odest differe n ces i n air po llu tan t lev e ls seen b e tween t h e two sam p lin g areas

co u l d b e d ifferen ces i n th e ov erall lev e l of co mm erci al an d ind u strial activ ity. As an in itial screen i n g, we

37atte m p ted to assess th is b y co un ting t h e n u m b e rs o f certain b u si n e ss typ e s in t h e B r onx an d Manh attan as

rep o rt e d i n U .S. C e ns us dat a

. H o weve r, we we re not a

b l e t o d e t e rm i n e whet h e r C e ns us b u si ness l i s t i ngs

represen ted activ ities th at act u a lly con t ribu ted to ai r p o llu tan t em issio n s in eith er bo ro ugh . Th ese listin g s are

base d on m a il i ng ad d r esses a n d i n m a ny cases co ul d re prese n t c o r p orat e o ffi ces or p o st of fi ce bo xes

. Al so, t h e

num ber of industrial facilitie s in an area does not necessa rily i m pl y a particular level of environm ental

ch em ical e m issio n s . For ex am p l e, air em issio n s fro m a sin g l e facility in Manh attan du ring 2 000 , as reported

unde r the fe deral Toxic Release Inve ntory program , exceed ed the total air em issions re ported from five TRI

facilities in th e Bron x.

Oth e r p o ssi b l e co n t ri bu to rs to po llu tan t lev el d i ffere n c es in th e t w o co mm u n ities in clud e traffic d i fferen ces

and t h e i n fl uence o f m o re di st ant i n d u st ri al em i ssi ons. Ove r al l ve hi cl e use doe s not a p pear t o di f f er g r eat l y i n

M a nhat t a n an d t h e B r o n x

, base d on l i m i t e d i n fo rm at i on re gardi n g vehi cl e regi st r a t i ons an d a x l e c o unt s.

Howe ver, local t r affic patterns, s u ch as c o mmercial tr affi c a n d b u s r out es , co ul d have a si gni fi cant e ffect on

pol l u t a nt di ffe rence s bet w ee n t h e t w o m oni t o r s . T h e i n d u st ri al de vel o pm ent i n n o rt her n New Je rsey

, west of

New Yo rk City, is sub s tan tial, an d em issio n s related to t h o s e facilities cou l d m a k e d i fferen t con t ribu tion s to

lo cal air p o llu tan t lev e ls. How e v e r

, d a ta w e r e no t co llected t h at allo w tho s e hypo th eses to b e ev al u a ted.

Tw o a n al y t e cat ego r i e s, oz one an d p o l l e n, t e nde d t o wa r d hi gh er ave r ag e l e vel s i n t h e B r o nx. Ozo n e i s f o rm ed

wh en n itro g e n ox i d es (related to fu el co m b u s tio n, esp ecially v e h i cle em issio n s ) and v o l atile organ i c

com pounds (VOCs) react toget h er i n the prese n ce of s unlight. Mea n nitr ogen oxide le vels were highe r in

M a nhat t a n t h an i n t h e B r o n x du ri n g t h e st udy peri o d

. Al t hough ni t r o g e n oxi d e s c ont ri b u t e t o day t i m e ozone

pr o duct i o n, t h ey ca n red u ce oz one l e vel s at ni g h t beca use of scave n gi n g of ox y g e n at om s from ozo n e by

n itric ox id e to form n itrog en d i o x i d e

. Th is ph en o m en on

, NO titratio n, co u l d hav e th e effect of d ecreasing

dai l y avera g e oz one l e vel s i n M a nhat t a n bel o w t h ose i n t h e B r on x. I f t h i s wer e t r ue, o v e r ni ght oz one an d

ni t r i c o x i d e l e vel s w oul d be ex pect e d t o decrease m o re an d ni t r o g e n di o x i d e l e vel s w oul d be e xpect e d t o be

p r op ortio n a tely h igh er ov ern ig h t in Manh attan co m p ar ed with the B r o n x

. Ho we ve r, h o u r-of-day tr e n ds f o r

ozo n e, ni t r i c oxi de a n d ni t r o g en di o x i d e d o not di f f er

bet w een t h e t w o st u d y l o cat i ons . St ead y or i n creasi n g

ozo n e l e vel s i n u r ban areas o n wee k en ds , despi t e red u ce d ni t r o g e n oxi de em i ssi ons on weekends

, ha ve been

hypothesize d to occ u r becau s e of i n crease d VOC-to-NO

x ra tios i n a VOC-lim it ed reg i m e (e.g ., Fu j ita et al.

20 0 3 ) . T h i s i s a not her m echani s m t h at coul d b e co nt ri b u t i n g t o hi g h er a v e r age oz o n e l e vel s i n t h e B r o n x

,

whe r e t h e re duce d NO

x l e vel s c oul d be ca usi n g i n crease d VO C

- NO

x r a tio s.

The higher pollen levels i n the B r onx m a y be a reflec tion of that c o mm unity’s larger a r eas of gree n s p ace.

They c oul d al so be a n i n di cat i o n o f sam p l i n g hei ght differe n ces or relative prox im it y o f th e sam p lers to

wo o d ed areas , gi vi n g w o o d e d a r eas a st r o n g er i n fl ue nce on t h e B r on x m oni t o ri n g si t e t h a n C e nt ral Pa rk h a d

o n th e Manh attan m o n ito ri n g site.

38An im portant limitation of the ai r m on itori ng data is that only a single m onitoring site was operate d in each

b o ro ugh . Th e m o n itors were sited t o b e represen tativ e of g e n e ral area air qu ality. Ho wev e r, becau s e o f th is,

they m a y not reflect the effects of pa rt i c ul ar em i ssi ons s o urces , s u c h as t h e Hunts Poi n t wa stewater t r eatm e nt

p l an t, on air qu ality in lo calized areas of t h e Bron x or Man h a ttan. Th e d e g r ee to wh ich t h is m a y h a v e affected

th e m o n ito ring resu lts is un certain

. Ho wev e r, t h e h ou r-of-day a n aly sis ( d iscu ssed below) suggests that l o cal,

gr o u n d -l e v el t r a ffi c em i ssi ons di d a p pear t o be refl ect e d i n t h e m oni t o ri ng res u l t s

. The B r onx m oni t o ri n g si t e s

were lo cated clo s er to gro und lev e l t h an th e Manh attan site, and so cou l d h a ve b een so m e wh at m o re

i n fl ue nce d by l o cal , st reet -level em issions source s.

Th e st u d y was also lim ited to so m e d e gree b y th e ch oi ce of po l l u t a nt s a n al y zed . A lth oug h th e nu m b er of

anal y t es was l a r g e r t h an i n m a ny p r evi ous st ud i e s, pa rt i c ul ar em i ssi ons s o urces m a y not ha ve bee n re fl ect ed i n

th e sam p lin g resu lts. Fo r ex am p l e, a v e ry lim it ed rang e of VOC po llu tan t s was an alyzed th at m a y n o t h a v e

been pa rticularly re flective of m o st industrial air em issions or odo ro us em issio n s fro m so lid -waste or

wastewater treatm en t facilities.

Th e ex ten s i v e long itud i n a l d a tab a se allo ws ch aracterizatio n of tem p o r al tren d s in ai r co n t am in an ts on ho urly,

daily and seas onal scales. Seve ral a n alytes that we re m easured on an h o u rl y b a si s s h o w e d m a rked va ri at i on by

ho u r of day

, i n cl u d i n g b o t h PM si ze f r act i o ns, el em ent a l carbo n, s u l f u r di o x i d e a n d ni t r o g en oxi des. Al l of

t h ese c ont am i n ant s ha d pea k ho u r l y co ncent r at i ons occ u rri ng at 7 –9 A

. M . and i n som e cases also ha d a less

d i stin ct p e ak ar ound 7

– 8 P

. M . One-hour tim e-weighte d ozone a v e r ages sh ow ed a r e v e r s ed tr end

, w ith a mid

aft e rn o o n h o u rl y peak an d l o w h o u rl y m eans d u ri ng t h e m o rni n g, c o nsi s t e nt w i t h m a ny prev i ous st udi es ( U

. S

.

EPA 19 96)

. H our ly tem p o r al p a ttern s w e r e gen e r a lly si m ilar at th e two sam p lin g sites an d cou l d be related to

t r affi c- v o l u m e pat t e rns , c h an ges i n vert i cal m i xi ng of ai r due t o day t i m e heat i ng a nd/ or c h an ge s du ri n g t h e

day i n dem a nd f o r heat a n d el ect ri ci t y and c o rres p on di n g c h an ge s i n em i ssi ons f r om po wer s o u r ces.

A tend en cy to ward l o w e r d a y- o f-w eek m ean s o n Su nd ays, in cr easing thro ug h th e w e ek t o Thur sd ays, w a s

f oun d fo r PM 10 , elem ental carbon a n d NO X . Ozon e sho w ed a sligh t tren d to ward higher weekend l evels, as

has bee n f o un d p r evi ousl y i n som e U. S. l o cat i o ns (e. g

., F u ji t a et al

. 2 0 0 3 ; P u n et al

. 2 0 03; H e uss et al

. 2 0 0 3 )

.

Exce pt f

o r

oz on e, t h ese res u l t s m i ght be hy p o t h esi z e d to re flect a buildup of t r affic and pe rha p s i n dustrial

em i ssi ons du ri n g t h e w o rk wee k

. I n s o m e l o cat i ons, hi ghe r wee k en d pea k l e v e l s o f oz one ha ve bee n

correlated t o reduced NO

x lev els, relativ e to VOC lev els, in ar eas w h e r e t r opo s p heri c oz one p r o d u ct i o n i s

VOC -l im i t e d (e.g

., Pu n et al

. 2 0 03; H u e ss et al., 2003). Howe ver, the significance of t h ese appare nt tre n ds for

all analytes is unclear beca use the variance estim a t es fo r the day

- of-week m eans are la rge

, at least in pa rt due

to su b s tan tial season al v a riatio n. PM 2.5 , or g a n ic car bon an d SO 2 d id no t sh o w a tend en cy t o w a rd d a y- o f

- w eek

diffe re nces.

39M a ny o f t h e anal y t es (p ol l e n, m o l d sp ore s

, ozo n e , SO 2 , n i t r oge n o x i d e, H N O 2 , HNO 3 , HCl

, N H 3 , pH a n d

SO 4 2- ) showed m a rked seas onal variations. Fo r i n stance, the conce n trations of HNO 3 , HCl

, N H 3 and S O 4 2­

were hi ghe r dur in g s u m m er than in wi nter. Th e s u m m er-winter ratios fo r HN O 3 , HCl , and S O 4 2- in Manhattan

w e r e 3.9, 3

. 1 and 1.9, r e sp ectiv ely. Th e con cen t r ation s o f H N O 2 , and SO 2 were hi ghe r du ri ng wi nt e r t h a n i n

su mm er, with su mm er-win ter rati o s in Manh attan 0

. 48 an d 0

. 44 , r e sp ectiv ely. Season al tr en ds w e r e sim i lar at

t h e B r on x sam p l i ng si t e

.

Ano t h e r i n d i cation o f th e sim ilarit y in po llu tan t t

r end s i n th e two m o n ito ri n g areas is th e co nsisten c y ob serv ed

in d e scrip t i v e m u ltiv ariate statistical resu lts b etwee n t h e Bro nx and Man h a ttan

. In b o t h areas, o z o n e lev e ls

ten d e d to b e strong ly n e g a tiv ely asso ciated with m o st other analytes, es pecially d u ri ng t h e fal l an d wi nt er

.

Si m ilar p a ttern s of p o s itiv e associatio n s am o n g an alytes were also seen in th e two m o n ito ring areas, with PM

usually associated with su lfate and orga nic carbon; SO 2 , nitrogen oxi d es a nd elem ental carbon form ed anothe r

cluster of ass o ciated a n alytes.

Lim i t e d st udi es of u r ba n ai r t o x i cs ha ve been co n duct e d i n s o m e of t h e b o r o u g h s o f New Yo r k C i t y . The m o st

ex ten s i v e d a ta h a v e b e en co llected o n Staten Islan d

. Am b i en t v o l atile org a n i c co m p o und s, ben z o(a)p y ren e

,

fo rm al dehy de a n d m e t a l s were m oni t o red i n a j o i n t EP A–New Y o rk –New J e r s ey st u d y i n 19 8 7 –1989. N i ckel

,

m a ngane se a nd i r on we re ro ut i n el y det ect e d i n t o t a l su sp end e d p articu late sam p les and tend ed to rang e in

conce n t r at i o n b y a p p r oxi m a t e l y t h reef ol d bet w een seas on s and m o n ito ring sites. Nick el was detected in m o re

than 70% of the PM 10 sam p les analyzed. The NYSDEC als o c o nduc t e d al dehy de sam p l i ng at a st at i o n i n t h e

North Bro n x i n su mmer 19 95

. Sam p lin g d u ration o f th ree ho urs in t h at stud y resu lted in d e tectab le lev e ls o f

acetaldehyde , form al dehyde , and propi onal d ehy d e in m o re tha n 99% of t h e sam p les collected.

Si nce 19 9 2

, NY S D EC has a n al y zed e v e r y

- si xt h-day t o t a l s u sp en de d par t i c ul at es sam p l e s f o r

fi v e t r ace

m e t a l s —arseni c , ca dm i u m

, m e rcury

, ni ckel , an d va nadi um —from one m oni t o ri n g st at i o n eac h i n B r oo kl y n

and Manhattan, two stations in Staten Isla nd and t h ree stations upstate. T h e trace m etals data show re gional

di ffe re nces i n c once n t r at i o ns, wi t h ni c k el bei n g el ev ated in Manh attan co m p ared with th e o t her sites.

Sim ilarly, in the curre nt st udy, t h e overall m ean PM 2.5 ni c k el l e vel fr om M a nhat t a n was hi gh e r t h a n t h e

ove ral l B r on x m ean. T h i s c onsi s t e ncy c oul d su g g est t

h at pa rticulate nic k el is largely ass o ciated with t h e fi ne

fract i o n. O r , ni ckel l e vel s c oul d be hi g h er i n al l part i c ul at e fract i o ns fr om M a nhat t a n, c o m p ared wi t h t h e ot her

b o ro ugh s.

In co n j u n ct i o n wi th t h e i m pl em ent a ti on pl an ni n g pr o cess fo r its m id

- to wn Ma nhattan street-level PM 10 site,

w h ich w a s classif ied m o d e r a te no n- attain m e n t in Janu ar y 19 94, N Y SD EC h a s stud ied p a r ticu late

characte r ization a n d PM 10 em i ssi ons i n ve nt o ry dat a f o r t h i s po rt i o n of M a n h at t a n (N YS DEC 19 9 5 )

.

Microsc opic and c h em ical characterization of PM 10 at the street-level Manha ttan m o n itor in dicated 53 % fro m

di esel em i ssi ons, 1 3 % am m oni um ni t r at e, and 9% am m oni um sul f at es, wi t h sm al l e r co nt ri bu t i o ns fr om road

40dust , a u t o m obi l e em i ssi ons, sea sal t , i r o n s o urces an d re sidual fuel oil. T h e em issi ons i nve n t o ry f o r t h e ent i re

county indicates that 70% of PM 10 em i ssi ons com e s fr om area com bust i o n so u r ces

, 19% f r om roa d d u st

, 6%

fr om al l vehi cl e em i ssi ons a n d sm al l e r am ount s fr om ot her so u r ces. These res u l t s m a y i ndi cat e t h at st reet

l e vel ex po su re t o PM i s m o re hea v i l y i n fl ue nce d by vehi cl e em i ssi ons t h a n em i ssi ons i nve nt o r i e s wo ul d

i ndi cat e. Al t h ou g h t h e cu rre nt st

udy res u l t s we re obt ai ne d fr om ro oft o p m oni t o rs (f o u r t o sev e n st ori e s a b ove

str eet lev e l) , th e str ong m o r n ing ru sh

- h our p eak in m a n y of th e an alytes with h ourly d a ta su gg ests th at v e h icle

e m issio n s m a y b e an im p o r tan t PM con t ribu tor u p to at least 20 m e ters ab ov e groun d lev e l.

I n th e cu rr en t s t ud y, w e me a s u r ed s e v e r a l P M 2.5 com p onents (elem e ntal and or ga nic carbon, s u lfate, hydroge n

io n and m e tals) an d fo und th at, o n ave r age

, about 60% of FRM PM 2.5 m easured at our sam p ling l o cations wa s

accounted for by the sim u ltaneou sly m easured c o m pone nts. P M 2.5 i n o u r dat a set acc o unt e d f o r a b out 6 5 % t o

85 % of PM 10 , d e pe n d i n g on t h e m easurem ent m e t hod use d and t h e sam p l i ng l o cat i o n

.

Data from pre v ious studies s u ggest t h ere are discernibl e differe n ces in am bient c once n trations of s o m e air

co n t am in an ts in urb a n areas, in clud ing New York City, fo r sites sep a rated b y as little as th ree t o fiv e m iles.

For e x am ple, Suh et al. (1995) c o llected 24-hou r sam p les of su lf ate, h ydro g e n i o n and amm o n ia

sim u l t a neousl y at se ve n l o cat i ons i n Phi l a del p hi a an d a n u p wi nd m oni t o r d u ri ng t h e s u m m ers of 1 9 9 2 a n d

19 9 3 . B a se d on t h ei r asses s m e nt of s p at i a l vari at i o n , t h ey c o n c l u ded t h a t a si n g l e m oni t o ri ng st at i on was

ad equ a te for su lfate (con sisten t with th e assu m p tio n t h at long -ran g e tran spo r t is t h e d o m in an t so urce), b u t

m u ltiple sites were necess a ry to de te rm ine local outdoor hydroge n ion c o ncent r ations, although variation i n

hy d r o g e n i o n ov er t i m e was hi g h ly c o rrelated ac ross sites.

G o l d stein and Land ov itz (1 97 7) fo und t h at fo r cer tain ai r co n t am in an ts (e.g., su lfur d i ox id e) th ere is a poo r

correlation am ong air m onitori ng sites withi n a m etropolitan a r ea. T h is s u gge sts that the va li dity of exposure

m easures fo r ce rt ai n c o nt am i n ant s ca n depe nd st r o ngl y on m oni t o ri n g t h em wi t h i n t h e com m uni ty bei n g

st udi e d . H o wev e r , no st u d y has det e rm i n ed p r eci se l i m it s on the a r ea of validity of m easurem ents for specific

co n tam in an ts, an d it is prob ab ly no t p o s sib le to do so on a g e ner a l b a sis. In the cu rr en t stud y, an d con tr a sting

with Go l d stein and Land ov itz’s resu lts, b e tween

- site c o r r el at i ons we re hi g h f o r m a ny of the analytes,

i n cl udi ng PM 2.5 , PM 10 , sul f ate, SO 2 , ni t r oge n o x i des

, ozo n e, i norga ni c aci ds , am m oni a and m o st bi oae r os ol s.

Between -site correlation s with in a larg e m e tro p o litan ar ea m a y d e p e nd o n several factors, su ch as lo cal

to po grap h y , can y o n effects, m o n itor h e igh t

, p r ev ailin g m e teo r o l og y, season ality an d l o cal source st reng th.

Ev en wh en co n t am in an t data are g e n e rally well co rrelat ed b e tween m o n itoring sites, t h e st reng th of an y

co rrelatio n m a y n o t p e rsist wh en m o n ito red concen trat i ons are at t h e hi g h e n d of t h e ra nge . T h e hi g h er

conce n trations are t h ose that are m o st likely to have h ealt h effects. For i n stance , a n e xpl oratory a n alysis of

cont em pora n eo u s c once n t r at i o n s at pai r s o f NY S D EC am b i en t air m o n ito ri n g sites in New York City,

co ndu cted pr io r to th is st u d y , f ound that tem p o r al v a r i atio n w a s stro ng ly cor r e lated am o n g sites f o r o z one,

41sul f ur

di oxi de, n i t r oge n o x i d es a n d PM 10

. H o w e ve r, t h e t e m poral c o r r el at i ons bet w ee n hi g h c ont am i n ant

lev e ls (d efi n ed as up p e r q u a rtile ob serv ation s ) were weak er, esp ecially for o z on e (u npu b lish e d d a ta). Greater

sp atial h e terog e n e ity in tem p o r al pattern s o f h i g h ex cursion s i n co n t am in an t con c en tration s m i g h t con t ribu te

to s p atial diffe re nces in ac ute asthm a exacerbations, e v e n if tem poral patterns for all c o ntaminant levels

appea r very si m i l a r across l o cat i o ns.

42Section 7

CO NCL USI O N S AN D RECO M M EN D A TIO N S

Am b i en t air qu ality m easu r ed wit h roo f t o p m o n ito rs at t w o lo cation s i n New York City fou n d t h at, for m o st

analytes, either t h e t w o sites di d not differ or m ean air lev e ls were h igh er at th e Manh attan locatio n th an at t h e

Bronx location. Analyte m eas u r e m en ts fro m b o t h lo cation s were su bj ect to larg e tem p o r al v a riation s on

hourly, daily and often sea sonal tim e scales. Whe n st atistically d i fferen t av erag e po llu tan t lev e ls were

det ect ed bet w ee n t h e t w o l o cat i o ns, t h ey di ffer e d by less th an two fo ld . Av erage o z on e an d po llen lev e ls

t e nde d t o be hi g h er i n t h e B r on x

, wi th m ean di f fere n ces of abou t 3 0 % to 70 % b e tween th e two sites. Th ese

resu lts, rep r esenting app r o x i m a tely two years o f ho urly or d a ily ob serv ation s on nearly three doze n a n alytes

fro m two lo cation s i n New Yo rk City, p r ov id e a m o re d e tailed ch aracterizatio n of am b i en t air po llu tan t s,

esp ecially p a rticu l ate m a tter co n s titu en ts, t h an h a s b e en prev iously reported for a larg e u r b an area. We

r eco mm en d th at f u t

u r e stud ies inv e stig ating am b ien t air p o l lu tan t ex po su r e s on an urb a n n e ighbo rh ood scale

co llect add itio n a l d a ta to b e tter ch aracterize spatia l v a riab ility o f am b i en t po llu tan t s in urb a n areas,

p articu l arly for no n-criteria po llu tan t s.

4344REFERE NCES

Age n cy fo r T oxi c S ubst a nces a n d Di sease R e gi st ry . 19 9 2 . To xi col ogi cal pr ofi l e fo r m a nga nese a n d

com pou nd s. U.S

. De part m e nt of Heal t h a n d H u m a n Se rvi ces.

Age n cy fo r T oxi c S ubst a nces a n d Di sease R e gi st ry . 19 9 3 . To xi col ogi cal pr ofi l e fo r c h r o m i u m

. U.S.

Depa rt m e nt of H eal t h a n d Hum a n Se rvi ces.

Age n cy fo r T oxi c S ubst a nces a n d Di sease R e gi st ry . 19 9 5 . To xi col ogi cal pr ofi l e fo r ni ckel

- draft

. U. S.

Depa rt m e nt of H eal t h a n d Hum a n Se rvi ces.

Al exa nde rss o n R , K o l o m odi n

- He dm an B , Hede nst i e r n a G. 19 8 2

. E x p o s u re t o fo rm al dehy de: ef fect s on

pul m onary fu nct i o n. Arch . En viro n. Hea lth 37 : 2 7 9–84.

Bari A, D u tkiewic z V A

, J u dd C D

, Wilson LR, L u t t i nge r D, H u sai n L. 2 0 03a . R e gi o n al so u r ces of

particulate s u lfate, SO 2 , P M 2.5 , HCl a n d H N O 3 in Ne w Yo r k

, N Y

. A t m o s. En v i ro n. 37: 2 8 3 7–44.

Bar i A

, Fer r a r o V, W ilso n LR, Lu tting e r D, H u sai n L. 2 003 b

. Measu r em en ts of g a seo u s H ONO, H N O 3 ,

SO 2 , HCl, N H 3 , particulate s u lfate a n d PM 2.5 in Ne w Y o r k

, NY

. Atmos

. Env

. 37: 2825–35.

B a sagana X , Su ny e r J , Z o c k JP

, Ko ge vi nas M

, Ur rut i a I

, Maldon ad o JA, A l m a r E, Payo F, An to JM. 20 01

.

Inci dence o f ast h m a and i t s det e rm i n ant s am ong a d ul t s i n Spai n. Am. J

. Respir . Crit. C a re Me d.

6 4 (7 ):113 3-7

. Related Articles, Link s

Bo m a n BC, Fo rsb e rg A B , Jar vho lm , BG . 200 3. A d v e r s e h ealth effects fro m a m b i en t air p o llu tion i n relatio n

to resi d e n tial wood co m b u s tio n in m o d e rn so ciety. S c and. J. Wo rk En viron

. Hea lth 29(4 ) : 25 1 –60.

Brunekreef B, Hol g ate ST. 20 02 . Air po llu tio n and h ealth

. L a n cet 360 : 1 2 3 3–42.

B u r n et t , R T

, Dal e s R E , R a i z i e n n e M E

, K r e w ski D. , S u m m ers, P W

, R o be rt s GR

, R aad -Young M

, Dan n T,

Br oo k J. 199 4. Ef f ects o f low am b ien t lev e ls of o z on e an d su lf ates o n th e f r e quen c y of r e sp irator y

ad m i ssio n s to On tario ho sp itals. Envir o n. Res. 65 : 1 72 –94.

Cen t ers for Disease C o n t ro l (CDC ). 20 06 .Behav io ral Risk Facto r Su rv eillan ce System web site p r ev alen ce

dat a

. h ttp ://ap p s .n ccd

. cd c.gov /b rfss/ind e x

. asp

. A c cessed May, 2 006

.

Co mmit t ee o f the En v i ron m en tal an d Occup a tio n a l Health Assem b ly o f th e Am eri can T h oracic Society. 1996.

Heal t h e ffect s o f out do or ai r pol l u t i o n

. Am. J. Resp ir. Crit. Care Med

. 153: 3 –50.

Dal e s R E

, C a km ak S, B u rnet t R T

, Ju de k S , C o at es F , B r o o k J. 2 0 0 0

. I n fl uence of am bi ent fu n g al sp ore s on

e m erg e n c y v i sits fo r asth m a to a reg i o n a l ch ildren ' s ho sp ital. Am. J

. Res p

. Crit. Care Me d.

1 62 : 208 7–9 0.

D’Am ato GD, Liccardi G, D' Am ato M, Cazzola M. 2002. Outdoor air po lluti on, clim a tic changes a n d allergic

b r on ch ial ast h m a. Eur. Re sp. J. 2 0 : 7 6 3–76

.

D ’ A ugo stino RB, Stev en s M A ( e d s .). 1 986 . Goodn ess- o f

- F it Techn iqu es. Mar cel D e kk er , New Yor k

.

Delfino RJ , Coate B D , Zaige r RS, Seltzer JM, St reet DH, Ko u t rak i s P. 199 6

. Daily asth m a sev erity in relation

t o pe rs onal oz on e e x p o s u re and o u t d oo r fu n g al s p o r es. Am. J. Resp ir. Crit. C a re Med. 154: 63 3

– 41.

45D elf ino RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Str eet D H

, Matteu cci RM, An d e r s o n PR, Kou t r a k i s P. 1 997. Th e ef f ect o f

out do o r f u ngal sp ore co nce n t r at i o ns o n dai l y ast h m a severi t y

. Envir o n Health Pers pect. 105(6 ) : 6 2 2–

35

.

Diaz-Sa nc hez D, Tsien A, Flem ing J, Saxon A. 1997 . Com b ined diesel e x haust pa rticulate and ragwee d

allergen challenge m a rke d ly enha nces hum an in vi vo nasal ra gwee d

- speci fi c I g E a n d s k e w s cy t o ki ne

pr o duct i o n t o a T hel p er cel l 2-t y pe pat t e rn . J Im m unol

. 1 5 8 ( 5 ) : 2 4 0 6

- 13.

D o ck er y DW , Po p e II I C A . 19 94. A c u t e r e sp ir atory effects of pa rticulate air poll u tion. Annu. R ev. P u b

.

Hea lth 15 :107

– 32.

Fei n m a n SE. 19 8 8

. R e spi r at ory e ffect s f r om fo rm al dehy de. In Fei n m a n SE (e d. ), Fo rmal dehyd e sen s itivity

an d t o xi ci t y

, 1 35- 48

. CRC Press, Bo ca Raton

.

Fu

ji t a EM , St ock w el l W R , C a m pbel l DE

, Kei s l a r R E

, La wson DR

. 2 0 0 3 . Ev ol ut i o n of t h e m a gni t ude and

spat i a l ext e nt of t h e wee k e n d oz o n e e ffect i n C a l i f o r ni a’s Sou t h C o ast Ai r B a si n, 1 9 8 1 –2000. J. Air

Waste. Manage

. Ass o c. 53( 7) :80 2– 1 5.

Gavett SH, Koren HS. 2001 . The role of pa rticulate m atter in e x acerbations of atopic asthm a. Int. A r c h

.

Allerg y Immun o l

. 12 4: 1 0 9–1 2

.

Gilb ert R. 198 7. S t a tistica l met h o d s fo r en vironmen ta l po llu tio n mon ito ring

. Jo h n W iley & So ns, I n c., N e w

Yo rk

.

G o l d stein I F , Lan dov itz L. 19 77 . An alysis of air po llu tion p a tterns in New York City: I. Can o n e statio n

represen t th e larg e m e trop o litan area ? At mos. E n vir o n. 11 : 47–52.

Gol d st ei n IF, D u l b e r g EM

. 1 9 8 1

. Ai r pol l u t i o n an d ast h m a : Search fo r a rel a t i o nshi p. J. Ai r Po llu t.

Co n t ro l A s so c

. 31 :370

– 76.

Go n g H J r , Li nn WS, S h am oo D A

, A n ders o n KR

, Nu ge nt C A , C l ar k K W , Li n AE. 1 9 9 6

. Ef fect of i n hal e d

sal m etero l on su l f u r d i ox id e-indu ced bro n c ho con s triction in asth m a tic su bj ects. Ch est 110(5 ) : 1 22 9

–

35

.

G r eenb ur g L, Field F, Reed JI

, Erh a rd t CL. 1 964. A s th m a an d tem p er atu r e chan g e

. Arch. Environ. He alth

8 : 64 2–4 7.

H a rv ing H

, Ko r s g a ar d J, D a h l R, Ped e r s en O F , Mo l h av e L. 1 986. Lo w con c en tr ation s o f fo r m ald e h yd e in

b r on ch ial ast h m a : a stu d y of expo su re und er con tro lled con d ition s

. Brit. Med. J. 293: 3 1 0.

Heat h SK

, Koen i g J Q , M o r g an M S

, C h ec k o way H, Ha nl ey Q S , R e bol l e do V

. 19 9 4 . E ffect s o f s u l f ur

di oxi de

expos u re on African-Am e rican a n d Caucasian a sthm a tics. Environ Res

. 66(1) : 1 –11.

Hig g ins BG, Fr ancis HC, Yates C

, War b u r to n CJ

, Fletche r AM, Picke r ing CA, W ood co ck AA . 200 0.

Env iron m en tal ex po su re to ai r p o llu tion and allerg ens an d p e ak flow ch an g e s. Eur. R e s p ir. J

.

1 6(1 ) : 61– 66

.

Horstm an D, Roger LJ, Keh r l H, Hazu ch a M. 198 6. Ai rway sen s itiv ity of ast h m a t i cs to su l f ur d i ox id e.

To xico l. Ind

. Hea lth 2( 3): 28 9 –98

.

46Ho rst m an DH , Seal E J r

, Fol i n s b ee LJ, I v es P, R oge r L J

. 1 988

. The rel a t i o ns hi p bet w ee n e x p o s ure du r a t i o n

an d su lf ur d iox id e- indu ced br on ch o c on str iction in asth m a tic su bj ects. Am . Ind. H y g. Asso c. J.

4 9(1 ) : 38– 47

.

Heus s JM

, Ka hl ba um DF, Wo l f f G T

. 2 0 0 3

. Wee k day / weeken d oz one di f f ere n ces: Wh at can we l ear n fr om

th em ? J. Air Waste. Manage . As soc

. 5 3 ( 7): 7 72 –88.

In stitu te o f Med i cin e (IOM ). 2 000

. Clearing t h e Air. Asth m a an d In doo r Air Ex po su res. Nation a l Acad em y

Press. Was h ingt on, DC.

Jam a son PF, Kal k st ei n L S

, Ger g e n PJ. 1 9 9 7

. A sy no pt i c eval uat i o n of a s t h m a hos pi t a l adm i ssi ons i n Ne w

York City. Am J Resp ir C r it Care Med

. 15 6(6 ) :178 1-8

.

Jenkins HS

, Devalia JL , Mister RL , Be van AM, Rusz na k C, D a v ies RJ. 199 9. Th e ef f ect of ex po su r e to o z one

an d n itrog en d i ox i d e o n th e airway resp on se of atop ic ast h m a tics to in h a led allerg en : d o s e- an d t i m e

d e p e nd en t ef fects. A m J Resp ir Cr it Car e Med. 1 60( 1) :33

- 9

.

Lei k au f GD

, Kl i n e S

, Al be rt R E , B a xt er AC

, B e r n st ei n DI , B e r n st ei n J, B u nche r C R

. 1 9 9 5 . E v al uat i o n of a

pos si bl e ass o ci at i o n of u r ba n ai r t o xi cs a n d ast h m a

. Envir o n. Health Pers pect. 103 (S uppl. 6):253–

71

.

Li n S, H w an g S A

, Pa nt ea C , K i el b C , Fi t z ge ral d E. 200 4. Ch ildho od asth m a h o s p italizatio n s an d am b ien t air

sul f ur

di oxi de c once n t rat i o ns i n B ro n x C o u n t y , Ne w Y o r k

. Arch E n viron Healt h

. 59(5 ) : 26 6-75.

Li nn WS, A vol E L

, Sham oo D A

, Ve net T G , A n de rs on KR

, Wh y not J D

, Hac k ney JD

. 19 8 4 a. Ast h m a ti cs’

r e spon ses t o 6

- hr su lf ur d iox id e expo su r e s on t w o su ccessiv e d a ys. Arch. Envir o n He alth 3 9 ( 4 ) : 313–

19

.

Linn WS, Sham oo D A

, Vinet T G , S p ier CE , V a lencia LM , A n za r UT, Hac k ney JD

. 1984b. C o m b ined e ffect

o f

su l f ur d i ox id e and co ld in exercisin g asth m a tics. Arch. Envir o n Health 39(5 ) : 3 39 –46.

Li ppm ann M

. 1 9 9 8 . Fi nal R e po rt . R e : a d eq uacy of ai r m oni t o ri ng f o r

A T SDR

, NY SD O H st u d y of t h e

asso ciatio n of neighb orh ood air po llu tion an d asth m a attack s. Sub m i tted to th e U.S. Cen t ers fo r

Disease C ontrol a n d Preve n tion.

M a nni no DM

, H o m a DM , Pe rto w s k i CA, Ash i za wa A, Nix o n LL , J o h n s o n CA , Ball LB, Jack E, Ka ng D S.

1 998 . Surv eillan ce fo r asth m a --United States, 1 960 -1 9 9 5. MM WR CDC Su rveill Su mm . 4 7 ( 1):1-2 7

.

Man n i n o D M , Ho m a D M , Ak inb a m i LJ, Moo r m a n JE, Gw ynn C, Redd SC. 2002

. Su rv eillan ce for ast h m a

-­

U n ited States, 1980 -1999. MM W R Su rv eill Su mm . 5 1 (1):1-1 3

.

Mard ia KV, Ken t JT, Bi b b y JM

. 19 79

. Mu ltiv ariate An alysis. Acad em ic Press. San Dieg o, CA.

Neter J

, Wasserm an W, K u tner M H . 19 9 0

. Ap plied lin ea r sta tistica l mod e ls: Reg r ession

, an a lysis o f va ria n ce

an d ex peri ment al

de si g n s. Th ird ed ition

. Irwin, In c. Ho m e wo od , IL.

New Yo rk State Dep a rtm e n t o f En v i ron m en tal Co n s erv a tion (NYSDEC )

. 19 94 . New Yo rk State air qu ality

rep o rt ai r m oni t o ri ng sy st em : An nual 1 9 9 3

. DA R

- 94-1.

New Y o r k St at e De part m e nt of E nvi r o nm ent a l C onser vat i o n ( N YS DEC )

. 1 9 9 5

. Ne w Y o r k St at e

im pl em ent a t i on pl an: I nhal a bl e pa rt i c ul at e ( P M 10 ).

Ped e n

, D. 200 2. Po llu tan t s an d asth m a : Ro le o f ai r tox i cs. Env i r o n. He alth Per spect. 110 (Sup p l

. 4): 56 5 –68.

47Pun BK, Sei g n e ur C, Wh ite W. 2 003 Day-o f-week b e h a v i o r of atm o sp h e ric ozon e i n three U.S. cities. J. Air

Waste M a nage. Ass o c. 53 (7 ) : 7 89– 8 01.

Ro n c h etti R, Villa MP, Barreto M, Ro ta R

, Pag a n i J, Mart ella S, Falasca C, Paggo B, Gug liel m i F, Cio f etta G.

2 001

. Is t h e in crease in ch ildh ood ast h m a com i ng to a n e n d ? Fi ndings from three surveys of

sch ool c h i l d re n i n R o m e , It al y

. Eur. Resp. J. 17 : 8 81 –86.

Scha ppi GF , Tay l o r P E

, Pai n M C

, C a m e ron PA

, De nt A W, St a ff I A

, Su p h i ogl u C

. 19 9 9 . C o nce n t rat i ons of

m a jor g r ass g r o u p 5 al l e r g ens i n p o l l e n grai ns a n d at m o sphe ri c pa rt i c l e s: Im pl i cat i ons f o r hay feve r

an d allerg ic asth m a su fferers sen s itized to g r ass po llen allerg en s. Clin . Exp

. Allerg y 29(5 ) : 63 3 –41.

Schw ela D. 2 0 00. A ir po llu tio n an d h ealt h in ur b a n ar eas. Rev. E n viron. He alth 15(1

- 2): 13

– 42.

Sori a n o JB

, A n t o JM , S u ny er J , T o bi as A, K oge vi nas M

, Al m a r E, M u ni oz gu re n N, Sanc hez JL, Pal e nci a no

L, Burn ey P. 1 999. Risk of asth m a in th e g e n e r a l Sp an ish po pu latio n attr ibu t ab le t o sp ecif i c

im m unores po nse . S p a n i s h G r o u p of t h e E u rop e a n C o m m uni t y R e spi r at o r y Heal t h S u r v ey

. Int. J

.

Ep id emio l. 28 ( 4) : 72 8– 34.

Su h HH

, Al l e n GA

, Ko ut ra ki s P , B u rt o n R M

. 1 9 9 5 . S p at i a l va ri at i o n i n aci di c s u l f at e an d am m oni a

co n c en tration s with i n m e tro p o litan Ph ilad e lp h i a. J. Air W a ste M a nage . Ass o c. 45: 4 4 2 –52.

Tak a n o H, I c h i no se T, Miyab a r a Y

, Yo sh ik awa T, Sag a i M. 1998

. D i esel exhau s t p a r ticles enh a n c e airw ay

resp o n si ve ness f o l l o wi ng al l e rge n e x po su re i n m i ce. Im m unop harm acol Im m unot oxi c o l

. 20 ( 2 ): 32 9­

36

.

Thu r st o n GD, Ito K, Kinn ey PL, Lipp m a n n M. 199 2. A m u lti-year stu d y of air po llu tion an d resp irat o r y

h o s p ital ad m i ssio n s i n three N ew York State m etr o p o litan areas: resu lts fo r 1988 and 1 989 su mm ers.

J. Ex pos . A n al . E n vi ro n. E p i d e m

. 1 9 2: 42 9 –50.

U.S. En v i ron m en tal Pro t ectio n Ag en cy (EPA). 1 996

. Ai r qu ality criteria fo r o z on e an d related pho to ch em ical

oxi dant s

.

U.S

. E nvi ro nm ent a l Prot ect i o n Age n cy (EP A )

. 19 9 9 . Particulate m a tter (PM 2.5 ) sp eciatio n gu idan ce

d o c u m en t. Th ird draft. U.S. EPA. M o n ito ring an d Quality Assuran c e Gro u p Em issio n s , Mo nito ri n g

,

an d An alysis Di v i sion

, Office of Air Qu ality Plan n i ng an d Stand a rd s, Research Trian g l e Park , NC.

U

. S. En v i r o n m en tal Pr o tectio n A g en cy ( E PA )

. 2002 [ H ealth A s sessm en t D o cu m e n t f o r D iesel Ex h a u s t,

sect i on 3]

W il k in son L. 1 999 SY STA T v. 9 m a n u a l. SPSS. C h icago

, I l.

World Health Organ i zation (WHO). 2 000

. Ai r Qu ality Gu id elin es, 2 nd ed ition

. Gen e v a

.

48AUTH O R S AN D A C K N OWLE DGE M ENTS

Dani el L u t t i nge r (N YS D O H ) w a s t h e st udy ’s p r i n ci pal inv e stig ator, and Llo yd W ilso n , Ed ward Fitzg e rald,

Laiq u a t Hu sain , Kenn eth Al d o u s (NYSDOH), Ph illip Galv i n (NYSDEC), Larry Syzd ek (priv a te aerob io l o g y

con s ul t a nt ) a nd Pat r i c k Ki nney (C ol um bi a Uni v ersi t y ) were co -i nve st i g at ors. Ad di t i onal st udy -desi g n a n d

st at i s t i cal -anal y si s cons ul t a t i on was pr o v i d e d b y J o h n Ha wl ey (NY S D O H )

, Fra n k B u ckm a n ( N YSD E C )

,

Tracey Holloway (Unive rsity of Mich iga n ) and Ke n Dem e rjian (NYSDEC). T h e st udy re port was a u thore d by

Daniel L u ttinge r, Lloyd W ils on, Gr e g g Recer and Kim Mazor (NYSDOH). Field sam p li ng staff i n cluded Dan

Li nce, Pat Pal m er, M i ke R i va ra, Ll oy d Wi l s on

, St ep ha ni e Sel m er, Jam e s Kam a ra, El l e n Fi t z sim m ons, D a n

Sha r r o n an d St an H o u s e ( N YSD O H ) , a nd Ed M a ri on , M i ke C h ri st op he rse n , B o b M u rway

, B o b El bu r n a n d

Fra n k Buc k m a n (N YS DEC) . La b o rat o ry staf f i n clu d ed A b dul Ba ri, Vince n t Fe rra ro and A m arjit Na ran g

( N Y S D OH)

. D a ta an alysis su ppor t staff in cl u d e d Jeff H ugh es, Y i ng W a n g , Valer i e H a ley, Jam e s K a m a r a

,

Ki m M azor, Ka re n Nol a n, Dan L u t t i nge r, G r eg g R ece r, Ll oy d W i l s on an d Lai q uat H u sai n (N Y S DO H) , a n d

P h il G a lv in an d Fr an k Bu ck ma n ( N Y SD E C)

.

Th e st u d y was fu nd ed with p a rtial su ppo rt fro m th e Agency for Toxic Substa nces and Disease Re gistry

(AT S DR ) as pa rt of C o ope r ative Agreem ent V50/ATV2 0 000 2- 1 1 and f r o m th e N e w Yor k State En erg y an d

Research De velo pm ent Aut hor ity (N YS ERDA )

.

4950TABLES

51Tabl e 1A . P o pul at i o n C h aract eri s t i c s of th e Bronx an d Manh attan Stud y Ar eas

Po pul at i o n Br on x Stud y A r ea Man h a ttan Stu dy A r ea

2 000 25 4, 1 67 35 5, 6 55

1 990 23 4, 4 78 34 3, 0 06

P e r c en t Ch an g e + 8% + 4%

So urce: U. S. B u rea u of C e ns us

Tabl e 1B

. Ho usi n g C h a r act eri s t i c s o f t

h e B r on x an d M a nh at t a n St udy Area s

Ho usi n g, 20 0 0 Br on x Stud y A r ea Man h a ttan Stu dy A r ea

Un its 8 5 ,807 21 5, 0 16

Occupied 7 9 ,584 20 1, 6 56

Un occ upi e d 6 223 1 3 ,360

Ow ner Oc cu pied 6 750 4 2 ,532

Renter Occupie d 7 2 ,834 15 9, 1 24

So urce: U. S. B u rea u of C e ns us

.

Tabl e 1C . M o t o r Ve hi cl e R e gi st rat i ons i n t h e B r o n x a n d M a n h at t a n St u d y Ar eas

V e h i cle Reg i str a tio ns, 20 01 Br on x Coun ty Man h a ttan Co un ty

Total 26 9, 5 77 25 7, 5 31

Standa rd Se ries 24 9, 7 85 22 9, 7 15

Co mmer c ial 9 340 1 3 ,655

Taxi 5 394 6 722

Bu s 62 4 23 0

Othe r 4 434 7 209

Source: Ne w York State De pa rt m e nt o f M o t o r Ve hi cl es.

52Tabl e 2. U. S. C e ns us B u rea u Zi p C ode Pat t e rn

Zi p C o de B u si ne ss Pat t e r n s ( 1 9 9 7 Sect or S u m m a ry )

Br on x Stud y A r ea Man h a ttan Stu dy A r ea

Total 3 121 4 7 ,340

Ag ricultu ral Ser v ices , F o re stry , Fis h in g 1 62

C onst r uct i o n 15 9 89 7

M i ni ng 1 16

Manufacturing 21 9 4 090

Transpo r tation and Pub lic Utilities 18 5 1 388

Wholesale T r ade 40 2 8 789

Retail Trad e 87 6 7 545

Fi nance

, Ins u rance

, a n d R eal Est a t e 44 3 5 909

Services 78 5 1 8 ,108

Unclassi fied 50 53 6

53Tabl e 3. Sum m ary of Dai l y Ave r a g e C o n c en tration s fo r Particu l ate Matter

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a

M a nhat t a n Bron x # of Seas on s

Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Ran g e of Season al

Diffe re nces c

PM 2.5 (TE O M ) * 16 .2 15 .3

PM 2.5 (FRM ) * 16 .6 14 .5

PM 10 (TE O M ) 23 .1 22 .3

PM 10 (FRM ) * † 22 .0 20 .9

*Si g ni fi ca nt l y di ffe re nt o v e r ent i re st u d y peri o d (P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 )

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ro n x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

† PM 10 (FRM) was c o llected every six days 6 / 0

5 / 0

5 / 1

1 / 0 0. 3 – 1. 2

0. 8 – 2. 0

- 6 .3 – 3.4

- 0 .2 – 3.0

Tabl e 4. Sum m ary of Pa rt i c l e C o unt s i n PM 2.5 Fraction

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a # of Seas on s Ran g e of Season al

M a nhat t a n Bron x Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Diffe re nces c

Particle Cou n t s 1 463 152 1 560 780 1 / 1 ‡

- 450 936 - 221 627

a Un its = cou n t

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ro n x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

‡ To tal p a rticle coun ts were no t av ailab l e fo r win ter 1 999 , spr ing 1 999 , or su mm er 1 9 9 9

Tabl e 5. Sum m ary of Dai l y Ave r a g es fo r pH

, S u lfate, and Carbon i n Pa rticulate Matter (PM 2.5 )

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a

M a nhat t a n Bron x # of Seas on s

Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Ran g e of Season al

Diffe re nces c

pH *

Sulfate *

Or ga ni c C a r bon

Ele m en tal Carb on 5. 04

4. 0

3. 09

1. 32 5. 15

3. 6

3. 17

1. 19 0 / 3

4 / 0

2 / 3

3 / 0 -0 .1 2 – -0 .0 2

0. 0 – 0. 3

-0 .5 7 – 0. 9 4

-0 .0 6 – 0. 2 5

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 ) (except p H )

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ronx

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

54Tab l e 6

. Su mm ary o f Daily Av erag es for Selected Metals in Particu l ate Matter (PM 2.5 )

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a

M a nhat t a n Bron x # of Seas on s

Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Ran g e of Season al

Diffe re nces c

Ir on 72 75

Nickel* 15 12

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = na no gr am s per c ubi c m e t e r ( ng/ m 3 )

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ro n x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x 2 / 1

4 / 0 -2 1 – 1 4

- 1 – 11

Tabl e 7. Sum m ary of Dai l y Ave r a g es fo r P o l l e n

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a

M a nhat t a n Bron x # of Seas on s

Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Ran g e of Season al

Diffe re nces c

To tal Po llen 13 .1 7 22 .3 2

Tree 12 .1 8 20 .5 3

Rag w eed* 0. 37 0. 45

Grasse s* 0. 38 0. 59

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Un its = # / m 3

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ro n x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x 0 / 4

0 / 2

0 / 1

0 / 0 -4 1. 7 2 – 0. 28

-4 1. 5 0 – 0. 27

-0 .7 4 – 0. 0 1

-0 .3 6 – 0. 0 1

Tabl e 8. Sum m ary of Dai l y Ave r a g es fo r M o l d

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a

M a nhat t a n Bron x # of Seas on s

Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Ran g e of Season al

Diffe re nces c

To tal Mo ld 49 0. 3 44 7. 8 0 / 2 -2 0 8. 8 – 11 2. 3

B a si di os po res 18 6. 0 18 4. 0 1 / 2 -1 0 1. 5 – 99 .6

Asco sp ore s 39 .0 43 .2 0 / 1 -1 7. 1 – 3. 4

Mito sp ores 25 9. 9 21 2. 5 1 / 2 -8 9. 4 – 1 17

. 3

Dark Mito spo r es 25 4. 1 20 8. 1 1 / 2 -8 3. 7 – 1 08

. 0

No n- Da rk M itosp o r es 5. 8 4. 4 0 / 1 5. 7 – 9. 3

Sm all Spores (< 10 μ m) 47 0. 4 42 7. 8 0 / 2 -2 0 4. 8 – 11 1. 6

Large S p o r es (> 1 0 μ m) * 12 .5 9. 9 0 / 0 -1 7. 7 – 0. 4

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Un its = # / m 3

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ro n x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

55Tabl e 9. Sum m ary of Dai l y Ave r a g es for Acetone a n d Se l ect ed Al de hy des

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a # of Seas on s Ran g e of Season al

M a nhat t a n Bron x Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Diffe re nces c

Acet al dehy de 2. 7 2. 5 4 / 1

- 1 .0 – 0.5

Acetone 6. 9 6. 8 3 / 2

- 2 .6 – 1.2

Form al dehy de 4. 4 4. 2 3 / 1

- 1 .9 – 0.5

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 )

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ro n x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

Table 10. Sum m ary of Daily Ave r ages for Acidic a n d Basic Ga ses

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a # of Seas on s Ran g e of Season al

M a nhat t a n Bron x Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Diffe re nces c

Hy dr oc hl o ri c Aci d (HC l ) *

N itr ou s A c id ( HONO )*

Nitric Aci d (HNO 3 )*

Am m oni a (N H 3 )*

Sul f ur

Di oxi de (S O 2 )* 0. 51

3. 21

1. 74

3. 53 6

26 .4 0. 47

3. 06

1. 11

2. 27 3

25 .8 0 / 1 †

3 / 0 †

2 / 0 †

2 / 0 ‡

2 / 0 † -0 .1 6 – 0. 0 9

0

. 1 4 – 0.50

0

. 0 2 – 0.50

0. 55 1 – 1. 4 85

1. 0 – 3. 8

(~ 0. 0 1 ppm ) (~ 0. 0 1 ppm )

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 )

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # seaso n s M a n h at t a n < B r on x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

† Gases were col l ect ed fr om 6/ 2 3 / 9 9 t o 7/ 11/ 00

‡ Am m oni a resul t s we re n o t avai l a bl e f rom 9/ 1/ 9 9 t o 12/ 28/ 99 an d fr om 5/ 1 7 / 0 0 t o 7/ 11/ 00

Tabl e 11 . S u m m ary of Dai l y A v e r age C o nce n t r at i o ns for U.S. EPA C r iteria Po llu tan t Gases and Oth e r

Nitrog en Ox i d es

Analy t e Ove r all Mean a # of Seas on s Ran g e of Season al

M a nhat t a n Bron x Statistical ly

Greater M/B b Diffe re nces c

Ozo n e ( O 3 )* 0. 01 2 0. 01 6 0 / 8 -0 .0 1 1 –

- 0. 0 02

Sul f ur

Di oxi de (S O 2 )* 0. 01 2 0. 01 1 5 / 0 0. 00 0 – 0. 0 06

Nitrog en Diox id e (NO 2 )*

Nitric Ox id e (NO)*

Nitrog en Ox i d es (NO X )* 0. 03 6

0. 03 1

0. 06 6 0. 03 1

0. 02 2

0. 05 3 7 / 0 †

7 / 0 †

7 / 0 † 0. 00 3 – 0. 0 13

0. 00 4 – 0. 0 11

0. 00 8 – 0. 0 22

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = pa rt s pe r m i l l i on (p pm )

b # M a n h at t a n > B r on x / # M a n h a t t a n < B ro n x

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

† Nitrog en ox id e resu lts were not av ailab l e fo r Bro n x fo r win t er 1 999

56Table 12. Sum m ary of Daily Ave r ages Con cen t r ation s for Particu l ate Matter: Co m p arison o f th e Two B r on x

Mo n itoring Sites

Analy t e a Br on x Site A ( 1999 ) Br on x Site B ( 2000)

M a nhat t a n Mean M a nhat t a n Mean

Bron x b Diffe re nce c Bron x b Diffe re nce c

PM 2.5 (TE O M ) 15.9 / 15. 2 0. 7* 15.5 / 14. 8 0. 7*

PM 2.5 (FRM ) 15 .2 / 1 4. 3 0. 8 16.7 / 15. 2 1. 6*

PM 10 (TE O M ) 21.3 / 22. 3 -1 .0 24.2 / 22. 5 1. 7*

PM 10 (FRM ) † 23.7 / 22. 8 0. 9 21.8 / 21. 9 -0 .1

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 ) (except p H )

b M eans are f r om pai r e d dat a

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

† PM 10 (FRM) was c o llected every six days

Table 13. Sum m ary of Daily Ave r ages for pH, Su lfate, and Carbon in Particu l ate Matter (PM 2.5 ): Com p ariso n

o f

th e Two Bro nx Mon ito ri ng Sites

Analy t e a Br on x Site A ( 1999 ) Br on x Site B ( 2000)

M a nhat t a n Mean M a nhat t a n Mean

Bron x b Diffe re nce c Bron x b Diffe re nce c

pH 5. 20 / 5

. 2 6 -0 .0 6 5. 05 / 5

. 1 3

- 0 .08*

Sulfate 3. 5 / 3. 4 0. 1* 3. 9 / 3. 7 0. 2*

Or ga ni c C a r bon 2. 84 / 2

. 9 7 -0 .1 3 3. 03 / 3

. 5 3

- 0 .51*

Ele m en tal Carb on 1. 58 / 1

. 4 4 0. 14 1. 26 / 1

. 1 2 0. 14 *

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 ) (except p H )

b M eans are f r om pai r e d dat a

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

Table 14. Sum m ary of Daily Ave r ages for Se lected Metals in Particu l ate Matter (PM 2.5 ): Co m p arison o f th e

Two Bron x Mon ito ri n g Sites

Analy t e a Br on x Site A ( 1999 ) Br on x Site B ( 2000)

M a nhat t a n Mean M a nhat t a n Mean

Bron x b Diffe re nce c Bron x b Diffe re nce c

Ir on 86 / 8 6 0 51 / 6 4 -1 3

Nickel 20 / 1 6 4 18 / 1 2 6*

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = na no gr am s per c ubi c m e t e r (ng / m 3 )

b M eans are f r om pai r e d dat a

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

57Tabl e 15 . S u m m ary of Dai l y A v e r ages f o r P o l l e n a n d M o l d : Co m p arison of th e Two Bro n x M o n itoring Sites

Analy t e a Br on x Site A ( 1999 ) Br on x Site B ( 2000)

M a nhat t a n Mean M a nhat t a n Mean

Bron x b Diffe re nce c Bron x b Diffe re nce c

To tal Po llen 11.8 / 16. 7 -4 .9 * 32.6 / 52. 7 -2 0. 1

Tree 11.4 / 16. 0 -4 .6 * 32.2 / 52. 1 -1 9. 9

Rag w eed 0. 0 / 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 / 0. 0 0. 0

Grasse s 0. 4 / 0. 6 -0 .2 0. 4 / 0. 6 -0 .2 *

To tal Mo ld -0 .5 33 6. 8 / 47 .2 30 7. 6 / 3 08

. 1 28 9. 6

B a si di os po res 36.2 / 39. 3 -3 .1 14 6. 1 / 46 .0

10 0. 1

Asco sp ore s 36.8 / 38. 7 -1 .8 27.7 / 29. 2 -1 .5

Mito sp ores 2. 5 16 1. 0 / 2. 6 23 0. 6 / 2 28

. 1 15 8. 5

Dark Mito spo r es 22 8. 2 / 2 25

. 5 2. 7 15 6. 3 / 1. 9

15 4. 5

No n- ar k M i t o sp o r es 2. 5 / 2. 6 -0 .2 4. 7 / 4. 0 0. 7

Sm all Spores (< 10 μ g) 0. 8 32 5. 4 / 47 .4 29 3. 2 / 2 92

. 3 27 8. 0

Large S p o r es (> 1 0 μ g) 9. 9 / 12 .9 -3 .0 6. 6 / 6. 8 -0 .2

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Un its = # / m 3

b M eans are f r om pai r e d dat a

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

Table 16. Sum m ary of Daily Ave r ages for Acetone a n d Sel ect ed Al d e hy des: C o m p ari s o n of t h e Tw o B r o n x

Mo n itoring Sites

Analy t e a Br on x Site A ( 1999 ) Br on x Site B ( 2000)

M a nhat t a n Mean M a nhat t a n Mean

Bron x b Diffe re nce c Bron x b Diffe re nce c

Acet al dehy de 2. 4 / 2. 2 0. 2 2. 7 / 3. 0 -0 .3

Acetone 7. 7 / 8. 6 -0 .9 6. 5 / 6. 3 0. 2

Form al dehy de 4. 1 / 3. 8 0. 4* 4. 1 / 4. 8 -0 .8

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 )

b M eans are f r om pai r e d dat a

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

58Table 17. Sum m ary of Daily Ave r ages for Acidic an d Basic G a ses: Co m p ar ison o f th e Two B r onx

Mo n itoring Sites (Ju n e 23 t o July 14 )

Analy t e a Br on x Site A ( 1999 ) Br on x Site B ( 2000)

M a nhat t a n

Bron x b Mean

Diffe re nce c M a nhat t a n

Bron x b Mean

Diffe re nce c

Hy dr oc hl o ri c Aci d (HC l ) †

N itr ou s A c id ( HONO ) †

Nitric Aci d (HNO 3 ) †

Am m oni a (N H 3 ) † ‡

Sul f ur

Di oxi de (SO 2 ) † 1. 30 / 1

. 2 1

1. 33 / 1

. 0 6

3. 91 / 3

. 5 3

5. 29 9 /

4. 74 8

20 .1 9 /

15 .4 7 0. 09

0. 27

0. 38 *

0. 55 1

4. 7* 0. 83 / 1

. 0 2

1. 38 / 1. 1 5

3. 32 / 3

. 2 5

NA

17 .8 1 /

15 .7 7 - 0 .18*

0. 23

0. 07

NA

2. 0*

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = m i crog ram s per c u bi c m e t e r ( μ g/m 3 )

b M eans are f r om pai r e d dat a

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

† Gases were col l ect ed fr om 6/ 2 3 / 9 9 t o 7/ 1 1 / 0 0

‡ Am m oni a resul t s we re n o t avai l a bl e f rom 9/ 1/ 9 9 t o 12/ 28/ 99 an d fr om 5/ 1 7 / 0 0 t o 7/ 11/ 00

Tabl e 18 . S u m m ary of Dai l y A v e r ag es Con cen t r ation s for U.S. EPA Criteria Po llu tan t Gases and Oth e r

Nitrog en Ox i d es: Co m p arison of th e Two B r onx M o n itoring Sites

Analy t e a Br on x Site A ( 1999 )

M a nhat t a n

Bron x b Mean

Diffe re nce c Br on x Site B ( 2000)

M a nhat t a n

Bron x b Mean

Diffe re nce c

Ozo n e ( O 3 ) 0. 01 6 / 0. 0 22 - 0 .006 * 0. 01 2 /

0. 01 7 - 0 .005 *

Sul f ur

Di oxi de (S O 2 )

Nitrog en Diox id e (NO 2 ) †

Nitric Ox id e (NO) †

Nitrog en Ox i d es (NO X ) † 0. 01 4 / 0. 0 10

0. 03 7 / 0. 0 27

0. 01 7 / 0. 0 09

0. 05 4 / 0. 0 37 0. 00 4 *

0. 01 0 *

0. 00 8 *

0. 01 7 * 0. 01 3 /

0. 01 2

0. 03 8 /

0. 03 3

0. 03 0 /

0. 02 4

0. 06 7 /

0. 05 7 0. 00 1 *

0. 00 5 *

0. 00 7 *

0. 01 0 *

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a Uni t s = pa rt s pe r m i l l i on (p pm )

b M eans are f r om pai r e d dat a

c Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

† Nitrog en ox id es were no t availab l e fo r Bro n x fo r win t er 1 9 9 9

59Tabl e 19 . S u m m ary of C o m p ari s o n of Dai l y M a xi m u m C once n t r at i o ns

Analy t e Ove r all Mean # of Seas on s Ran g e of Season al

Statistical ly Diffe re nces b

M a nhat t a n Bron x Greater M/B a

PM 2.5 (TE O M ) ( μ g/m 3 )

PM 10 (TE O M ) ( μ g/ m 3 )

To tal Particles (#)*

Or ga ni c C a r bon ( μ g/m 3 )

Ele m en tal Carb on ( μ g/ m 3 ) 27 .5

38 .4

2 294 848

3. 71

2. 04 27 .3

37 .3

2 696 751

3. 66

1. 94 2/ 1

2/ 2

0/ 2 ‡

2/ 2

1/ 1 -1 .4 7 – 2. 2 5

-1 0. 7 2 – 6. 32

- 937 376

– -44 048

-0 .3 7 8 – 0. 94 4

-0 .2 5 4 – 0. 35 4

Ozo n e ( O 3 ) – 1 h ou r (p pm )* 0. 02 8 0. 03 3 0/ 8 0. 01 6 – 0. 0 05

Ozo n e ( O 3 ) – 8 h ou r (p pm )* 0. 02 1 0. 02 7 0/ 8 0. 01 2 – 0. 0 04

Sul f ur

Di oxi de (S O 2 ) (p pm )

Nitrog en Diox id e (NO 2 ) (pp m ) *

Nitric Ox id e (NO) (pp m )

Nitrog en Ox i d es (NO X ) ( ppm ) 0. 02 4

0. 05 0

0. 08 3

0. 12 7 0. 02 3

0. 04 9

0. 07 5

0. 11 9 2/ 0

1/ 0 †

1/ 0 †

1/ 0 † -0 .0 0 2 – 0. 00 4

0. 00 0 – 0. 0 14

-0 .0 0 4 – 0. 02 1

0. 00 4 – 0. 0 32

El em ent a l and o r ga ni c ca rb o n ar e based o n 3

- hou r c o ncent r at i o n s ; t h e rest a r e based o n 1

- hour c o n c e n t r at i o ns.

* Si gni fi cant l y di f fere n t ove r e n t i re st udy pe ri o d ( P ≤ 0

. 05)

a # Manh attan > Bro nx / # Manh attan < Bro nx

b Di ffe rence = M a n h at t a n – B r o n x

† Nitrog en ox id e resu lts were not av ailab l e fo r Bro n x fo r win t er 1 999

‡ To tal p a rticle coun ts were no t av ailab l e fo r win ter 1 999 , spr ing 1 999 , or su mm er 1 9 9 9

60Tabl e 20 . C o rrel a t i o ns (Pea rs on r ) bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n M oni t o ri ng Si t e s f o r t h e Sam e Ai r

Co n t am in an ts at th e Two Sites

Pa rticles Gases

PM 2.5 (TE O M ) 0. 97 Acet al dehy de * 0. 81

PM 2.5 (FRM ) 0. 90 Acetone* 0. 23

PM 10 (TE O M ) 0. 92 Form al dehy de* 0. 80

PM 10 (FRM ) 0. 96 Ozo n e ( O 3 ) 0. 92

Particle Cou n t 0. 22 Nitrog en Ox i d es (NO X ) 0. 87

pH 0. 69 Nitric Ox id e (NO) 0. 88

Sulfate 0. 96 Nitrog en Diox id e (NO 2 ) 0. 77

Or ga ni c C a r bon 0. 62 Sul f ur

Di oxi de (S O 2 ) 0. 90

Ele m en tal Carb on 0. 77 Hy dr oc hl o ri c Aci d (HC l ) 0. 84

Ir on 0. 37 N itr ou s A c id ( HONO ) 0. 84

Nickel 0. 38 Nitric Aci d (HNO 3 ) 0. 93

To tal Po llen 0. 98 Am m oni a (N H 3 ) 0. 92

Tree Pollen 0. 98 Sul f ur

Di oxi de (S O 2 ) (de n uder ) 0. 90

Rag w eed 0. 86

Grasse s 0. 75 Mete or ol o g i c al

To tal Mo ld 0. 84 Tem p erature 1. 00

B a si di os po res 0. 71 Relativ e Hu m i d ity 0. 98

Asco sp ore s 0. 68

Mito sp ores 0. 87

Mitospores (Dark) 0. 88

Mito sp or es (N on

- D ar k) 0. 05

Sm all Spores (< 10 um ) 0. 83

Lar g e Sp or es ( > 10 u m ) 0. 79

* C orrelation s between sites were calcu lated ex cl u d i ng d a ta fr o m A p r il 20 t o A p r il 30

, 20 00

. If t

h ese d a tes are

include d, the correlations betwee n s ites for acetal dehy de, acet one , a n d form al dehyde would be 0.66, 0.21, a n d

0. 19 , respect i v el y

.

Tabl e 21 . –C o rrel a t i o ns (Pear so n r) bet w een Dai l y A v e r age an d Dai l y M a xi m u m

Po lluta nt Bro n x Ma nh at ta n

Or ga ni c C a r bon (u g/ m 3 ) 0. 91 0. 90

Ele m en tal Carb on (u g / m 3 ) 0. 93 0. 93

Ozo n e – ( 1 hr m a x) (p pm ) 0. 90 0. 92

Ozo n e – ( 8 hr m a x) (p pm ) 0. 94 0. 95

NO Xx (p pm ) 0. 89 0. 89

NO ( ppm ) 0. 89 0. 88

NO 2 ( ppm ) 0. 86 0. 85

SO 2 (p pm ) 0. 88 0. 85

PM 2.5 (TE O M ) (u g/m 3 ) 0. 88 0. 90

PM 10 (TE O M ) ( u g/m 3 ) 0. 90 0. 81

To tal Particu l ates (# ) 0. 68 0. 64

Tem p erature (de g F) 0. 98 0. 99

Relativ e Hu m i d ity (%) 0. 89 0. 89

61Tabl e 22 . C o rrel a t i o ns (Pea rs on r ) bet w ee n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n M oni t o ri ng Si t e s f o r t h e Sam e Ai r

Co n t am in an ts at th e Two Sites, Stratified b y Year, fo r C o m p arable Date Ranges bet w een the Two B r onx sites

(Jan ua ry 1

– J u ly 1 4 )

Po lluta nt 1 999 Pea r so n r 2 000 Pea r so n r

pH 0. 56 0. 77

Sulfate 0. 96 0. 98

Form al dehy de 0. 79 0. 81

Acet al dehy de 0. 61 0. 86

Acetone 0. 02 9 0. 66

Or ga ni c car bon 0. 80 0. 86

Ele m ental carbon 0. 74 0. 76

Nitric ox id e (NO) 0. 55 0. 91

Ni t ro g e n oxi des (N O

x ) 0. 41 0. 92

Nitrog en d iox id e (NO 2 ) 0. 40 0. 88

Ozo n e ( O 3 ) 0. 85 0. 93

Sul f ur

di oxi de ( S O 2 ) 0. 87 0. 94

PM 2.5 (TE O M ) 0. 96 0. 96

PM 2.5 (FRM ) 0. 34 0. 99

PM 10 (TE O M ) 0. 92 0. 97

PM 10 (FRM ) 0. 99 0. 95

Hy dr oc hl o ri c aci d ( HC l ) 0. 95 0. 79

N itr ou s acid ( HON O) 0. 92 0. 79

Nitric acid (HNO 3) 0. 98 0. 91

Sul f ur

di oxi de ( S O 2 ) (de nu de r) 0. 72 0. 88

Am m onia (N H3 ) 0. 61 0. 92

Ir on (F e) 0. 30 0. 31

Nickel (Ni) 0. 29 0. 58

To tal po llen 0. 89 0. 98

Tree polle n 0. 89 0. 98

R a gwee d p o l l e n 0. 02 3 0. 00 7 5

Grass po llen 0. 81 0. 85

To tal m o ld 0. 92 0. 73

Basidiom ycetes 0. 74 0. 49

Ascom y cetes 0. 55 0. 70

Mito sp ores 0. 94 0. 82

Dark m ito sp ores 0. 94 0. 83

No n- da rk m M i t o spores 0. 01 4 0. 19

Sm a ll sp o r es 0. 91 0. 72

Large s p ores 0. 76 0. 89

To tal p a rticle n u m b er

- 0. 04 9

Tem p erature 1. 0 1. 0

Relativ e h u m id ity 0. 99 0. 97

62FIGURES

63

### Figure Figure 1. Bronx Sampling Locations

### Figure 2. Manhattan Sampling LocationFigure 36.Multidimensional scaling results for (A) Bronx and (B) Manhattanair-monitoring data.Results for all seasons combined.Panel APanel B112-201-2-10DSO2SO2NOHNO2NINOXSOOTFENO2PM25O3HNO3NH3HIONHCLFORMACTNCARBSULFACTLPM10-1-2-101-2-10NOHNO2SO2NIDSO2NOXNO2SOOTFEACTNO3HCLHIONHNO3NH3FORMCARBSULFPM10PM25ACTLKey:ACTL =acetaldehydeACTN = acetoneCARB = organic carbonDSO2 = sulfur dioxide (denuder)FE = ironFORM = formaldehydeHCL = hydrochloric acidHION = hyrdogenion concentrationHNO2 = nitrous acidHNO3 = nitric acidNI = nickelNO = nitrogen oxideNOX = nitrogen oxideNO2 = nitrogen dioxidePM25 = PM2.5PM10 = PM10SOOT = elemental carbonSO2 = sulfur dioxideSULF = sulfate2Figure 37.Multidimensional scaling results for (A) Bronx and (B) Manhattanair-monitoring data.Results for January – March.-4-3-2-101-2-101O3HNO3NIHCLFEACTNNO2DSO2FORMNOXHIONCARBSULFHNO2SOOTNOACTLPM25SO2NH3PM10Panel APanel B222-3-2-10-2-101O3NIFEHCLHNO3NO2ACTNDSO2NH3SO2HIONSULFHNO2PM10PM25CARBNOACTLFORMNOXSOOTKey:ACTL =acetaldehydeACTN = acetoneCARB = organic carbonDSO2 = sulfur dioxide (denuder)FE = ironFORM = formaldehydeHCL = hydrochloric acidHION = hyrdogenion concentrationHNO2 = nitrous acidHNO3 = nitric acidNI = nickelNO = nitrogen oxideNOX = nitrogen oxideNO2 = nitrogen dioxidePM25 = PM2.5PM10 = PM10SOOT = elemental carbonSO2 = sulfur dioxideSULF = sulfate1Figure 38.Multidimensional scaling results for (A) Bronx and (B) Manhattanair-monitoring data.Results for April - June.Panel APanel B112-2-101-2-10HNO2NOSO2SOOTNOXFENO2NIDSO2PM25O3FORMHNO3HIONACTNACTLHCLCARBNH3SULFPM10-2-101-2-10HNO2NISO2NODSO2NOXFENO2SOOTPM25O3HIONHNO3HCLNH3CARBSULFFORMACTNACTLPM10Key:ACTL =acetaldehydeACTN = acetoneCARB = organic carbonDSO2 = sulfur dioxide (denuder)FE = ironFORM = formaldehydeHCL = hydrochloric acidHION = hyrdogenion concentrationHNO2 = nitrous acidHNO3 = nitric acidNI = nickelNO = nitrogen oxideNOX = nitrogen oxideNO2 = nitrogen dioxidePM25 = PM2.5PM10 = PM10SOOT = elemental carbonSO2 = sulfur dioxideSULF = sulfate2Figure 39.Multidimensional scaling results for (A) Bronx and (B) Manhattanair-monitoring data.Results for July – September.Panel APanel B212-2-101-2-101NH3NOHNO2NOXNO2SOOTNIFESO2PM10O3HCLCARBHNO3FORMHIONSULFPM25ACTLACTNDSO2-3-2-101-2-10HNO2NONOXNH3ACTNACTLFORMNO2SOOTSO2O3NIHNO3HCLHIONSULFCARBDSO2PM10FEPM25Key:ACTL =acetaldehydeACTN = acetoneCARB = organic carbonDSO2 = sulfur dioxide (denuder)FE = ironFORM = formaldehydeHCL = hydrochloric acidHION = hyrdogenion concentrationHNO2 = nitrous acidHNO3 = nitric acidNI = nickelNO = nitrogen oxideNOX = nitrogen oxideNO2 = nitrogen dioxidePM25 = PM2.5PM10 = PM10SOOT = elemental carbonSO2 = sulfur dioxideSULF = sulfate2Figure 40.Multidimensional scaling results for (A) Bronx and (B) Manhattanair-monitoring data.Results for October - December.Panel APanel B1-3-2-101-2-10O3HCLNH3HNO3HIONDSO2ACTNSULFPM10SO2CARBNINOHNO2SOOTFENOXACTLFORMPM25NO22-3-2-101-2-101O3HCLHNO3NH3HIONACTNSULFFORMFEACTLNOSO2DSO2HNO2NOXNISOOTCARBNO2PM10PM25Key:ACTL =acetaldehydeACTN = acetoneCARB = organic carbonDSO2 = sulfur dioxide (denuder)FE = ironFORM = formaldehydeHCL = hydrochloric acidHION = hyrdogenion concentrationHNO2 = nitrous acidHNO3 = nitric acidNI = nickelNO = nitrogen oxideNOX = nitrogen oxideNO2 = nitrogen dioxidePM25 = PM2.5PM10 = PM10SOOT = elemental carbonSO2 = sulfur dioxideSULF = sulfate

## Figure 41. Hierarchical clustering results for (A) Br onx and (B) Manhattan

air-m onitoring data. Results for all seasons co m b ined.

Panel A

0 distance (=1-r) 2

O3

———————————————————————————————— ┐

HCL

————— ┐ ├ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ——————————————————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | HNO3

————— ├ ┘ —————————————— ┐ | ├

——————— ┐ HION

—————————————— ┐ ├

—— ┐ | | | | | | | SULF

—————— ┐ | | | ├

——————— ┘ | |

PM25

—— ┐ | | | | | | | PM10

—— ├ ┘ ——— ┘ | | | | ACTL

———— ┐ | | | ├

—— ┘

FORM

———— ├ ┘ —————— |

┐ | | | | CARB

——————————— ├ ┘ ————— ┘ | | | | | NH3

———————————— ┐ | ├

——— ┘ ├

——————————————— ┘

ACTN

———————————— ┘ | |————————————

NO2

——————————— ┐ | | | | | SOOT

———————— ┐ | ├

————— | | | | ┐

NOX

— ┐ ├

—————— ├ | ┘ —— ┘

| | | | NO

— ┘ | ├

——————————————————— ┐ HNO2

————————————————— ┘ |

DSO2

— ┐ ├

————————————————————————————— ┐ | | | ├

—————————————— ┘

SO2

— ┘ | ├

————— ┘

NI

—————————————— ┐ ├

———————————————— | ┘

FE

—————————————— ┘



## Panel B

0 distance (=1-r) 2

O3

——————————— ┐

HNO3

———— ┐ ├

—————— ├ | ┘ ———————————————— ┐ | | | HCL

———— ┘

HION

—————— ┐ | | | | | | | ├

—————————————————————— | | | | | ┐

SULF

—————— ├ ┘ ————— |

┐

PM25

——— ┐ ├

———————— | ├

┘ ————————— | | | ┐ | | | | PM10

——— ┘

Actl

————— ┐ | | | ├

————— ┘

FORM

————— ├ ┘ ——————————— |

┐ | | | | | CARB

—————————— ┐ | ├

———— ┘ ├

—————— ┘

NH3

—————————— ┘ | |—————————————

NI

————————————————————— ┐ | | | fe

————————————————————— ├ ┘ ——————————— |

┐ ├

————————————————— ┘

AcTN

————————————————— ┐ ├

————————————— ┐ | |

NO2

—————————— ┐ ├

—————— | ┘ | | | | | | SOOT

—————————— ┘

HNO2

———————————————————— ┐ | ├

— ┘

NO ┐ ├

————————— ┐ | | | ├

—————————— ┘

NOX ┘ | ├

————————— ┘

SO2

—— ┐ ├

——————— | ┘

DSO2

—— ┘

Key : ACTL = acetaldeh y d e

DSO2 = sulfur diox ide (denuder)

HCL = h y dro c hlor ic acid

HNO3 = nitric acid

NOX = nitrogen oxide

PM10 = PM 10

SUL F = sulfa t e ACTN = acetone

FE = iron

HION = h y rdogen ion concentration

NI = ni ckel

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide

SOOT = elemental carbon CARB = organ i c carbon

FORM = formaldeh y de

HNO2 = nitrous acid

NO = nitrogen oxide

PM25 = PM 2.5

SO2 = sulfur d i oxide

## Figure 42. Hierarchical clustering results for (A) Br onx and (B) Manhattan

air-m onitoring data. Results for January – March.

Panel A

0 distance (=1-r) 2

O3

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ┐ |——————

HCL

————————————————————————————————— ┐ | | | | | ACTN

————————— ┐ ├

——————————————————————— | ├

┘ ————— | | | ┐

NH3

————————— ┘

HION

——————————————————— ┐ ├

————— ┐ | | | ├

—————————————————— ┘

HNO2

—————— ┐ ├

———————————— | ┘ | | | | | | | | | | | | | CARB

—————— ┘

SULF

————— ┐ | | | | | ├

———— | | | ┐

PM10

—— ┐ | ├

—————————— | | | ┐

PM25

—— ├ ┘ —— ┘ | | | | | SO2

—— ┐ | ├

———————— ┘

DSOW

—— ├ ┘ ————————————— ┘ | ├

—————— ┐ | | |

HNO3

——————————————————————— ┐ ├

—————— | ┘ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ACTL

——— ├ ┐

—— ┐ | | | | | | | | | FORM

——— ┘ | ├

———— ┐ NO ┐ ├

—— ┐ | | | | | | | NOX ┘ | |

NO2

——— ├ ┘ —— ┘ ├

——————————— ┘ | | | | | | | | SOOT

——————————— ┘

FE

———————————— ┐ | ├

—┘ ├

———————————————————————— ┘

NI

———————————— ┘



## Panel B

0 distance (=1-r) 2

O3

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ┐ |—————————

HCL

————————————————————— ┐ ├

— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | NO2

———————————— ┐ ├

—— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ACTLE

——————— ┐ | | ├

— ┐ | |

PM10

———— ┐ | | | |

PM5

———— ├ ┘ —— ┘ | | | | | |

NOX ┐ | ├

—— ┘ ├

———————— ┘

NO ┘

SOOT

—————— ┐

CARB

——— ┐ ├

—— | ├

┘ ———— | | | ┐

FORM

——— ┘ | | | |

| | | | | ├

—— | | | ┐

| | | | ├

——— ┘

HNO2

——————————— ┘

SULF

—————— ┐ ├

——————————— | ├

┘ —— ┘ | | | | | | | | | HION

—————— ┘ | ├

—————————————————————— ┐ NH3

—————————————— ┐ ├

———————— | ┘ | | | ACTN

—————————————— ┘

FE

———————————————— ┐ ├

———————————————————— ┐ | | | ├

———————— ┘

NI

———————————————— ┘ | ├

———————— ┘

HNO3

——————————— ┐ ├

————————————————————————— | ┘

SO2

——— ┐ ├

——————— | ┘

DSO2

——— ┘

Key : ACTL = acetaldeh y d e

DSO2 = sulfur diox ide (denuder)

HCL = h y dro c hlor ic acid

HNO3 = nitric acid

NOX = nitrogen oxide

PM10 = PM 10

SUL F = sulfa t e ACTN = acetone

FE = iron

HION = h y rdogen ion concentration

NI = ni ckel

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide

SOOT = elemental carbon CARB = organ i c carbon

FORM = formaldeh y de

HNO2 = nitrous acid

NO = nitrogen oxide

PM25 = PM 2.5

SO2 = sulfur d i oxide

## Figure 43. Hierarchical clustering results for (A) Br onx and (B) Manhattan

air-m onitoring data. Results for April – June.

Panel A

0 distance (=1-r) 2

O3

——————————————————————————————— ┐

HION

————————————— ┐ ├

————————————— ┐ ├ | | | | | | | ———————————————————— ┐ | | | | | FORM

——— ┐ ├

—————— ┐ | | | | | | | | ACTL

——— ┘ |

CARB

—————————— ├ ┘ —— ┘ | | | | | | | | | | PM10

— ┐ | | | | | | | | | ├

——— ┘

PM25

— ├ ┘ —————— |

┐

SULF

————— ┐ ├ | | ———————— | | | | | ┐ ├┐

HNO3

————— ┘ | |

HCL

—————— ├ ┘ —┘ | | | | | ACTN

——————————— ┐ | ├

————————— ┘ ├

————— ┘

NH3

——————————— ┘ | |————————————

HNO2

————————— ┐ | | | NO

— ┐ | ├

———— | | | ┐

NOX

— ├ ┘ ——————— ┘ | | | | | | | | | | ├┐

SOOT

—————————————— ┘ | ├

——————————— ┐ NO2

——————————————— ┘ | ├

—— ┐ DSO2

—— ┐ ├

———————————————————————— | ┘ | | | SO2

—— ┘

FE

———————————————————— ┐ ├

————————— | ├

┘ ————————————————————— ┘

NI

———————————————————— ┘



## Panel B

0 distance (=1-r) 2

HION

——————— ┐

SULF

——————— ├ ┘ ——————— ┐ |

PM10

——— ┐ ├ | | | —— | ┐

PM25

——— ├ ┘ —

|

┐ | | | | | FORM

—— ┐ | ├

————————— ┘

ACTL

—— ├ ┘ —— ┘ |

SOOT

————————— ┐ | ├

———————————— | | | | ┐

HCL

——— ┐ | ├

———————— ┘

HNO3

——— ├ ┘ ————— ┘ |

O3

—————————————————————————— ┐ | ├

——————————————— | | | | ┐

CARB

—————— ┐ ├

——————————————————— | ├

┘ ———— ┘

NH3

—————— ┘ | |—————————————————

ACTN

—————————————————————————————— ┐ ├

——— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | | | NO

— ┐ ├

———————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | NOX

— ┘ | ├

——— ┐ NO2

—————————— ┘ | ├

——————————— ┐ DSO2

————— ┐ ├

———————— | ┘ | | | | | | | SO2

————— ┘ ├

——— ┘

HNO2

—————————————————————————— ┘

NI

——————————————————————— ┐ ├

—————————— | ├

┘ ———————————— ┘

FE

——————————————————————— ┘

Key : ACTL = acetaldeh y d e ACTN = acetone CARB = organ i c carbon

DSO2 = sulfur diox ide (denuder) FE = iron FORM = formaldeh y de

HCL = h y dro c hlor ic acid HION = h y rdogen ion concentration HNO2 = nitrous acid

HNO3 = nitric acid NI = ni ckel NO = nitrogen oxide

NOX = nitrogen oxide NO2 = nitrogen dioxide PM25 = PM 2.5

PM10 = PM 10 SOOT = elemental carbon SO2 = sulfur d i oxide

SUL F = sulfa t e

## Figure 44. Hierarchical clustering results for (A) Br onx and (B) Manhattan

air-m onitoring data. Results for Jul y – Septem ber.

Panel A

0 distance (=1-r) 2

ACTN

—————————————————————————— ┐

O3

—————————————————————————— ├ ┘ ——————————— ┐ | ├

——————————————— ┐ HION

————————— ┐ ├

——————————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SULF

—— ┐ | | | |

PM25

—— ├ ┘ —— |

┐ | | | | ├

——— ┘

PM10

————— ┘

SO2

————— ┐ ├

————————————— ┐ | | ├

——— | | | | | ┐

DSO2

————— ┘ | |

ACTL

———— ┐ | | | ├

— ┘

FORM

———— ├ ┘ ———————— |

┐ | | | | | | | CARB

———————— ┐ | ├

————— ┘

HNO3

———— ┐ ├ | ———— ┘

HCL

———— ├ ┘ ——— ┘ | | | | | ├

———————————— ┘

FE

————————————————————————— ┘ |——————————

NI

——————————————————————————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | NO2

——— ┐ ├

——————— ┐ ├ | | | | | —————— | | | ┐

NOX

——— ┘ | ├

———— ┐ | | | | SOOT

——————————— ┘ | ├

—————————— ┘

NO

———————————————— ┘

HNO2

———————————— ┐ ├

————————————————————— | ├

┘ ——————————————————— ┘

NH3

———————————— ┘



## Panel B

0 distance (=1-r) 2

HNO2

——————————————————————— ┐

NO

———— ┐ ├ | —————— | | | ┐ ├

—————————————————— ┘

NOX

———— ┘ ├

——————————————————— ┐ NH3

—————————————————————————————— ┘ | |——————————————

ACTN

———————————————————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | NO2

————————— ┐ ├

———————— ┐ | | ├

——————————————— | | | | | | ┐

SOOT

————————— ┘ | |

FORM

—————— ┐ | ├

—┘

ACTL

—————— ├ ┘ ——————————— ┘ |

CARB

———————— ┐ | | | | | ├

————————————— ┘ ├

— ┐ PM10

——————— ┐ | | ├┘ | | | PM25

——— ┐ ├

——— | ┘ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SULF

——— ┘ | ├

————— ┐ HION

—————————— ┘ | ├

—┐ O3

———————————————— ┘ | ├

—————————— ┐ HNO3

————— ┐ ├

——— ┐ | | | | | | | | | HCL

————— ┘ | ├

———————— ┘

DSO2

———— ┐ ├

———— | ┘

SO2

———— ┘ | ├

—————— ┘

FE

————————————————————————— ┐ ├

——— | ┘

NI

————————————————————————— ┘

Key : ACTL = acetaldeh y d e ACTN = acetone CARB = organ i c carbon

DSO2 = sulfur diox ide (denuder) FE = iron FORM = formaldeh y de

HCL = h y dro c hlor ic acid HION = h y rdogen ion concentration HNO2 = nitrous acid

HNO3 = nitric acid NI = ni ckel NO = nitrogen oxide

NOX = nitrogen oxide NO2 = nitrogen dioxide PM25 = PM 2.5

PM10 = PM 10 SOOT = elemental carbon SO2 = sulfur d i oxide

SUL F = sulfa t e

## Figure 45. Hierarchical clustering results for (A) Br onx and (B) Manhattan

air-m onitoring data. Results for October – December.

Panel A

0 distance (=1-r) 2

O3

—————————————————————————————————————— ┐ ├

————————— ┐ HCL

——————————————— ┐ ├

——————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | HNO3

——————————————— ┘ | ├

—————————————— ┘

SULF

——————— ┐ ├

——————————————— | ┘

HION

——————— ┘ | |————————————————

NO ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | NOX ├ ┘ ————— |

┐

SOOT

—————— ├ ┘ —————— |

┐

NO2

——————— ┐ | ├

———————— | | | | | | | ┐

ACTL

— ┐ | | | | | | | ├

————— ┘

FORM

— ├ ┘ — ┐ | ├┐

PM25

—— ┐ || ├┘ | | | | | | PM10

—— ┘ ├

—— ┘

ACTN

———— ┘ | | | | | | | | FE

————————————— ┐ | | | ├

———— | ┐

HNO2

————————————— ├ ┘ ———— ┐ | ├

——— ┘ | | | | CARB

—————————————————— ┘

NI

————————————————————— ┐ ├

————— | ├

┘ ———————————————————— ┘

SO2

———— ┐ ├

———————————————— | ┘

DSO2

———— ┘



## Panel B

0 distance (=1-r) 2

O3

———————————————————————————————— ┐

HNO3

—————————————— ┐ ├ | | | ———————————————— ┐ |

HCL

—————————————— ├ ┘ ———— |

┐ | | | | | SULF

————— ┐ | ├

———————————— ┘ ├

————————————— ┘

HION

————— ┘ | |———————————————

FE

————————————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | ACTN

———————— ┐ | ├

——————— | | | | | | | ┐

FORM

— ┐ | | | | | | ├

———— ┘

ACTL

— ├ ┘ —— |

┐ ├┐

PM10

—— ┐ ├

— ||

┘ |

PM25

—— ┘ | | | | | | NO2

————— ├ ┘ —— ┘ | | | | | | | | | | | | ├

——————————— ┐ CARB

————— ┐ ├

———————— ┐ | | | | | | | | | | | HNO2

————— ┘ | ├

—————— ┘

SOOT

———— ┐ ├

————————— | ┘

NOX ┐ ├

——— | ┘

NO ┘ | ├

——————————————— ┘

DSO2

— ┐ ├

—————————————————— ┐ | | | SO2

— ┘ | ├

———————————— ┘

NI

———————————————————— ┘

Key : ACTL = acetaldeh y d e ACTN = acetone CARB = organ i c carbon

DSO2 = sulfur diox ide (denuder) FE = iron FORM = formaldeh y de

HCL = h y dro c hlor ic acid HION = h y rdogen ion concentration HNO2 = nitrous acid

HNO3 = nitric acid NI = ni ckel NO = nitrogen oxide

NOX = nitrogen oxide NO2 = nitrogen dioxide PM25 = PM 2.5

PM10 = PM 10 SOOT = elemental carbon SO2 = sulfur d i oxide

SUL F = sulfa t e13 4APPE NDI CES

13 5APPE NDI X 1. DET A ILS OF AN AL YTICA L AN D STATISTI C A L MET HO D S

QA/ Q C Pr ot oc ol s

Th e qu ality assu ran ce and q u a lity con t ro l m easu r es in stitu ted for th is sam p lin g pro g ram fo llo wed stand a rd

l a bo rat o ry a n d fi el d pract i ces fo r cal i b rat i o ns, run n i n g bl an ks, fl ow au di t s , se r v i c i n g o f e q ui pm ent , et c. T h e sc he dul e

fo r per f o r m i ng t h e va ri o u s QA/ QC m easures w a s at l east as ri go ro us as t h at re qui red i n EPA p r ot oc ol s; w h ere n o

EPA prot ocol e x isted, the sc hedule was as ri gorous as the m o st widely accepted pr otoc ol. A list of the various

app r ove d m e t hods a n d ass o ci at ed pr ot oc ol s use d f o r eac h of t h e m easurem ent s i s p r o v i d e d i n Ta bl e A1

.

Table A1. Meas urem ent Technol o gi es and Ass o ciated Protocols

Measu r em en t Techno log y /Field In stru m e n t EPA- App r o ved Meth od /Pr o to co l

Acid Ae ros o ls, Am m onia an d A c id Gases EPA M e t h o d IO -4

. 2

Al de hy des EPA Met h od TO-11

Ele m en tal Carb on , Org a n i c Carbon

, To tal Carbo n R u p p rec h t a n d Pat a s hni c k 54 00 Se ri es C a rb on a n al y zer

FRM10 Wed d i n g &A ssoc PM 10 Hi gh V o l Sam p l e r R F P S -108 7

­

06 2

FRM2. 5 Ru pp rech t an d Patash n ick Partiso l Pl u s M o del

2 025 RFPS-04 9 8

- 118

Metals I ndu ctiv ely Co up le Pl asm a/Mass Spectrom etry/

Swam i et al (2001) Journal of Analytical Chem is try (2001)

3 69 : 63- 70

Mo ld s and Po llen B u r k ar d B i oaer o s ol Sam p l e r/ No EP A P r ot ocol Is s u e d

NO/ NO 2 /NO

x Therm o E nvi ronm ent a l I n st r u m e nt s M odel 42

EPA Equ iv a lence Nu m b er ( RFN A- 1 289- 0 74)

Ozo n e Therm o E nvi ronm ent a l I n st r u m e nt s M odel –49, EP A

Equ i v a len c e N u m b er (EQOA

- 0 880- 0 47)

Particle Nu m b er TSI I n c. M odel 1 0 2 2 C o nde nsat i o n Part i c l e C o unt er

PM 10 (pa r ticulate m a tter 10 m i crons or less) Rupprec h t a n d Patas hnic k TEOM Particulate Analyzer

EPA Equ iv a lence Nu m b er ( E QPM- 1 0900079 )

PM 2.5 (pa r t i c ul at e m a tt er 2. 5 m i crons o r l e ss ) Rupprec h t a n d Patas hnic k TEOM Particulate Analyzer

EPA Equ iv a lence N u m b er ( E QPM- 1 0900079 )

SO 2 Therm o E nvi ronm ent a l I n st r u m e nt s M odel 43 C S O 2

Pulse d Fl uorese nce.Analyzer

EPA Equ iv a lence Nu m b er ( E QSA

- 0 486- 0 60)_

13 6Ou r st udy i m pl em ent a t i on re qui red st af f t o t ra v el eve ry Wedn es day f rom Al ba ny t o Ne w Yo r k C i t y t o c o l l ect

sam p les, downl o ad data , a n d service e qui pm ent. Eve r y pi ece of e qui pm ent associated with the study was revie w e d

and ser v i ced t o m a ke s u re t h at i t

wa s per f o r m i ng t o pre

- est a bl i s hed Q A / Q C st an dar d s. Al l of t h e s e l f-di a gnos t i cs

tools i n the va rious pieces of equipm ent we re revie w ed. After bei n g down loa d ed, the data we re revie w ed to see if

any noticeable iss u es c o uld be i d e n tified. All fl ow audits were pe rform e d at least as fre quently as require d by E P A

protoc ols a n d m anufacturers’ rec o mmendatio ns with a NIST t r aceable flow m ete r. All of th e work require d was

doc um ent e d on fi el d f o rm s as wel l as m a ny of t h e pa ram e t e rs fr om t h e sel f-di a gn o s t i c s. At t h e c o ncl u si o n o f eac h

sam p ling eve n t on We dne sday, a s u pervisor revi e w ed the work docum e nt ed on each field form

.

Because the m onitoring stations we re als o part of the DEC air m onitori ng net w ork, DEC staff we re on-site m o re

freq u e n tly th an o n c e a week. Th ey serv iced th e NO

x , S O 2 and o z one m e t e rs as re qui re d by E P A

. DEC st af f al s o

repo rted to us an y prob lem s with th e add itio n a l equ ip m en t, an d st a ff we re t h e n de pl oy ed t o m a ke t h e ap p r op ri at e

corrections.

More detail on t h e m ethodology used for each m eas urem ent appears in the na rrative for each analyte.

An al yti c al Meth od s

PM 10 an d PM 2.5

Two TE OM ® Series 1400a Am bient Particulate M o nitors (Rupp rec h t & Patas hnic k C o

., I n c. , Al ba ny, NY ) were

depl oyed at each location, with one unit m easuring PM 10 an d t h e ot her m easuri n g PM 2.5

. T h e TEO M ® Ser i es 1 400 a

was use d t o m easure pa rt i c ul at e m a ss conce n t r at i o ns c o nt i n uo usl y . T h e i n st rum e nt i n c o r p orat es t h e pat e nt ed t a pe re d

ele m en t o s cillatin g m i cro b a lan c e (TEOM), a m i cro w eig h i ng techno log y

. Using a cho i ce o f sam p le in lets (eith er

in ertial or cyclon ic), th e sam e h ardware can be configure d to m easure eithe r PM 10 or P M 2.5 . This m i croprocess o rb a sed u n it p r o v i d e s i n tern al d a ta sto r ag e and adv a n c ed an alo g and serial d a ta i n pu t/ou t pu t cap a b ilities. Th e TEOM ®

Series 1400a m onitor ha s recei ve d the EPA PM 10 eq ui val e ncy a p pr o v al EQ PM -1090-079. P M 2.5 m easurem ents are

within t h e c o ntext of a EPA-correlated accepta ble c ontinuous m onit o r (40 CFR 58).

The Series 1400a m onitor incorporates an in ertial b alan ce t h at d i rectly m easures the m a ss collected on an

excha n geable Tefl on ® -co a ted boro s ilicate g l ass filter cartridg e b y m o n ito rin g t h e co rresp o n d i ng freq u e n c y ch an g e s

o f

a tap e red elem en t. Th e sam p le flow p asses throug h th e f ilter, wh ere p a rticu l ate m at t er co llects, an d th en co n tinu e s

t h r o u g h t h e h o l l o w t a pe re d el em ent on i t s way t o an act i v e vol um et ri c fl ow c o nt r o l sy st em and va cu um pum p.

Activ e v o l u m etric flo w con t ro l is m ain tain ed b y m ass flow con t ro llers who s e set po in ts are con s tan tly adju sted i n

accorda n ce with the m easured am bient te m p erature and pre ssure. Bot h the m a ss and t h e flow rate m easurem ents are

verifia b le using NIST-tracea ble sta nda rds. R&P PM 10 and Teflon ® coate d PM 2.5 size -selective inlets were used for

p article cu t o ff. Sam p le in let flo w was 1 6 .7 l/min , with t h e m a in flow rate throug h th e sen s o r u n it m a in tain ed at 3

. 0

l/ min

. Sam p le stream te m p erature was heated t o 50 ° C, and th e filter un it was h e l d at 5 0 ° C to p r ev en t co nd ensation

.

A m easure of cha n ge in the m a ss conce n tration was m a de ev e r y two sec o nds and use d t o calculate hourly ave r ages

.

13 7Data were l o gg ed b y th e i n stru m e n t s an d down l o a d e d ev ery Wedn esd ay b y proj ect staff. Sam p le filters were

ex ch ang e d wh en t h e filter’s p e rcen t lo ad ing (cap acity) r each e d 7 5 % or g r eater, wh ich was abou t ev ery three weeks.

App r ox im ate l y ev ery two m o n t h s , in let h ead s were eith er clea ned on-site or replace d with clean heads

. TEOM ®

uni t s were ke pt i n t e m p erat ure- c o nt r o l l e d r oof t o p e n cl o s ur es. A supp lem e n t al A CCU sy stem was attached t o the

PM 2.5 units at eac h location (descri b ed bel o w).

FRM 10 a n d 2.5

Pa rticle Numb er

Th e M o d e l 30 22A C o nd en sation Particle Co u n ter (TSI In c., Shore v iew, MN) was use d to m easure the num be r of

ai rb or ne part i c l e s bet w ee n 0. 00 7 a n d 2. 5 m i crom et ers i n di am et er. Thi s i n st rum e nt det ect s an d co u n t s part i c l e s wi t h

an opt i cal det ect or . T h e but a nol va p o r i s i n t r od uce d i n t o t h e ai r st ream and co n d e n ses o n part i c ul at es. T h i s

co nd en sation en larg es th e particle so th at it can b e m eas ured with the optical detect or

. Ap pr ox im ate sa m p lin g f l ow

was 30 0 cm 3 / m i n . Dat a we re l o g g ed by t h e i n st r u m e nt at

one-m i nut e i n t e rval s an d d o w n l o ad e d once pe r wee k

.

Maintenance of t h e inst rum e nt include d weekly draini ng of the inte rior butan ol rese rvoir, as well as replacem ent of

old butanol to preve n t inte rfe rence due to sat u ration of the rese rvoir wic k by wate r. Wicks were re placed at sixm ont h i n t e r v al s.

Org a n i c an d El e m ent a l

C

a rb on

A Se ri es 54 0 0 Am bi ent C a rb on Pa rt i c ul at e M o ni t o r (R up prec ht & Pat a s hni ck C o

., I n c.

, Al ba ny

, NY ) was use d t o

measure orga nic and elem ental carbon. T h e i n st r u m e nt uses a di re ct t h erm a l

- C O 2 m easurem ent to provide a n

i ndi rect m easure o f t h e am ount of car bo n i n t h e c o l l ect ed p a rt i c ul at e. O u t d oor ai r was d r a w n f r om t h e gl ass m a ni f o l d

(desc r ibe d ea rlier) at 1 6

. 7 l p m thro ug h a Teflo n ® coated, PM 2.5 size-selectiv e in let. Th e p a rticulate was collected for

th ree ho urs on a filter, wh ich was t h en h eated . Th e in stru m e n t s were p r o g ramm ed to h eat th e filter to 2 5 0

, 340

, 55 0

an d 750 ° C. Th e fraction v o latilized o r ox id ized to CO 2 at 250 ° C is co n s i d ered t h e v o l atile o r g a n i c fraction

. Th e

semi-v o l atile o r g a n i c fraction is o x i d i zed at 3 4 0 ° C

, an d t h e el em ent a l carbon i s t h e di f f ere n ce i n t h e am ount

oxi di zed t o C O 2 at 750 ° C m i n u s t h at ox id ized t o CO 2 340 ° C . D a t a we re l o g g e d by t h e i n st rum e nt a n d d o w nl oade d

weekly.

EPA ’ s E n vi r onm ent a l Tech nol ogy Ve ri fi cat i o n Pr o g ram revi ewe d R & P ’ s 54 0 0 C a r b on A n al y zer i n 20 0 0–2001 an d

issued a verification statem en t, wh ich read s, in p a rt,

The pr o g ram eval uat e s t h e perf o r m a nce o f i n n o v at i v e t ech nol ogi es by de vel o pi n g t e st pl ans t h at

ar e r e spon siv e t o t h e n eed s of stak eho l d e r s , condu ctin g f ield or lab o r a tor y tests ( a s app r op r iate),

collecting a n d a n aly z ing data, an d pre p a r in g p eer-re v i ewe d re po rts. All evalu a tion s are co nd u c ted

in accordance with ri gorous quality assurance prot oc ols to e n sure that data of known a n d a d equate

q u a lity are g e n e rated an d th at t h e resu lts are d e fen s ib le.

13 8Field testing was c o nducted i n two phases. The first took place at the DOE National E n ergy Tec h nology La borat o ry

in Pittsbu rg h, fro m Au gu st 1 throu g h Sep t em b e r 1, 2 000 . Th e seco nd ph ase was at t h e Californ i a Ai r Reso urces

Board’s am bient air m onitoring station i n Fres no from Decem ber 18, 2000, t h rough January 17, 2001. Perform ance

characte r istics veri fied i n cluded inter- unit precision, agreem ent with a n d c o rr elatio n t o tim e-in teg r ated referen c e

m e thods , effect of m e teorolog ical conditions, and i n fl uence of prec ursor gases

. OC , EC, and TC res u lts from the

5 400 were co m p ared wit h lab o rat o ry t h erm al/o p tical re flectan ce (TOR) an alysis o f filter-b ased referen c e sam p les.

Technol ogic a l Desc ription

See repo rt at h ttp ://www.ep a .g ov /etv / v eri f icatio n s / v cen ter1-3 .h tm l.

Verification of Perform a nce

In ter-u n it p r ecision

PHASE I RE SUL TS

Linear Re gression Or ga ni c C a r bon Ele m en tal Carb on To tal Carb on

Ho urly Av era g e (OC) (EC) (TC)

r2 0. 94 0. 93 0. 95

Sl ope ( 9 5% C .I

. ) 1. 06 3 ( 0. 02 1) 1. 03 7 ( 0. 02 2) 1. 06 9 ( 0. 02 0)

Linear Re gression 24-hr Or ga ni c C a r bon Ele m en tal Carb on To tal Carb on

A v er ag e (OC) (EC) (TC)

r2 0. 97 0. 94 0. 97

Sl ope ( 9 5% C .I

. ) 1. 09 4 ( 0. 08 1) 1. 03 8 ( 0. 11 3) 1. 09 8 ( 0. 08 8)

PHASE II RES U LTS

Lin ear Reg r ession H our ly Or ga ni c C a r bon Ele m en tal Carb on To tal Carb on

A v er ag e (OC) (EC) (TC)

r2 0. 94 0. 92 0. 86

Sl ope ( 9 5% C .I

. ) 0. 97 1 ( 0. 01 9) 1. 02 9 ( 0. 02 4) 1. 07 4 ( 0. 03 5)

Linear Re gression 24-hr Or ga ni c C a r bon Ele m en tal Carb on To tal Carb on

A v er ag e (OC) (EC) (TC)

r2 > 0.97 > 0.97 > 0.97

Sl ope ( 9 5% C .I

. ) 1. 02 7 ( 0. 07 2) 1. 16 4 ( 0. 08 3) 1. 09 0 ( 0. 07 0)

Co m p arab ility an d Pred ictab ility

In both Phase I a n d Phase II, 24-hour ave r ages from the 5400 s h owe d a ne gative bias when com p are d with OC

,

EC, and TC re fere nce m easurem ents. Phase I regression slop es w e r e b e l o w 0.4 fo r th e O C, EC, and TC, an d r2

val u es we re bet w ee n 0. 4 3 a n d 0 .5 2

. P h ase II re gressi o n sl o p es fel l bet w ee n 0

. 2 a n d 0 .7 an d b e t w ee n 0. 2 a n d 0. 9 fo r

m oni t o rs 1 an d 2, res p ect i v el y

, fo r all thr ee carbon f r action s , an d r2 v a lu es w e r e b e tw een 0

. 65 an d 0.90

.

13 9M e t e orol ogi cal E ffect s

Fo r Ph ase I, th e m u ltiv ariab l e m o d e l ascri b ed a sm all b u t si g n ifican t effect o n t h e 54 00 ’s read ing s relativ e to th e

refe rence f o r

ve rt i cal an d ho ri zo nt al wi nd s p eed

, wi n d di rect i o n, a n d am bi ent ai r t e m p at 2 an d 10 m e t e rs. In

gene ral, t h e c o m b ined e ffect of these pa ram e ters was sm all. (For e x am ple, the m odel pre d icts a Phase I a v era g e

OC value t h at di ffe rs from the linear regression m odel by ab ou t 5 % .) Fo r Ph as e I I, s m all but significant effects

were ascri b ed t o wi n d s p ee d, wi nd di rect i o n , st an da rd de vi at i o n o f wi n d di rect i o n, sol a r radi at i o n, rel a t i v e

h u m id ity, an d b a ro m etric p r essure.

In flue nce of Pre c u r so r Gases

For Phase I, the m odel asc r ibed statistical in flu e n ce t o O 3 , H 2 S, and NO 2 o n t h e r ead i n gs o f one o r bo th 540 0

m o n ito rs relativ e t o the reference resu lts. For Ph ase II, NO and t o tal NO

x were ascribe d a statistical influe nce t o

bot h m oni t o rs rel a t i v e t o t h e re fere nce EC a n d TC , a n d t o NO 2 an i n flu e n c e on on e m o n ito r relativ e t o th e

referen c e OC. Th e co m b in ed effect o f th e m u ltip le p a ram e ters was typ i cally a few p ercen t, relativ e to th e lin ear

r e gr ession of th e 540 0 and r e f e r e n ce resu lts.

Othe r Pa ram e ters

In g e n e ral, th ese m o n ito rs req u i red little m a in ten a n c e and co u l d b e larg ely o p e rated un atten d ed . Data recov e ry was

abo u t 90 % over bot h ph ases of t e st i n g

.

Metals

I n conj un ction w it h th e TEO M ® PM 2.5 system s at each location, a n Aut o m a tic Cartridge Collection Unit, or ACC U

(R u p p r ec ht & P a t a sh ni ck C o

. , I n c

., Al ba ny , N Y )

, wa s used to collect pa rticulates for m etals analysis. The ACCU

attach ed t o th e 13 .7 l/m in b y p a ss flow lin e of t h e TEOM ® m o n ito r an d p erm itted filter-b ased sam p lin g

. Th e

syste m ’ s eig h t in ter n al f l ow chan n e ls allo w e d f o r d a ily co llectio n of p a r ticu l ate sam p les th r ough th e u s e of a b a n k of

solenoid val v es. The se valves we re el ect r oni cal l y co nt r o l l e d by t h e Seri es 1 400a m onitor. The airflow was di rected

th ro ugh filter h o l d e rs fitted with 47-m m , 2

. 0

- μ m pore size Ze flour TM su p p orted PTFE filters (Pall Corp., Ann Arbor,

MI). Th e fo llo wi ng m e tals were in cl u d e d i n th e an alysis (d etection lim i t s are in p a ren t h e ses): C r (5 ng /m 3 ) , Fe (2 2

ng/ m 3 ), Pb ( 12 n g / m 3), M n ( 3 n g / m 3), Ni (4 n g / m 3), a n d Z n ( 7 7 ng/ m 3 ).

Aci d Aer o s o l s , A m mo ni a

, an d A c i d G a ses

Th e URG-2 0 0 0 -01J Week ly Ai r Particu l ate Sam p ler (URG, C h ap el Hill, NC ), an 8-ch an nel annu lar d e n u d e r system

,

was use d to cha r acterize five reactive gase s (NH 3 , H C l

, HN O 2 , HN O 3 , and SO 2 ), pa rtic ulate sul f ate, a n d aeros ol pH

(EPA Method IO-4.2). Each ch ann e l was fitted with two 1 2 0

- m m g l ass h eav y-wall annu lar denud ers conn ected in

series, follo wed by a 47 -m m

, 2.0

- μ m su p ported PTFE filter (Pall Corp., An n Arbo r, MI). The first an nu lar d e nu d e r

was c o ated with sodium carbonate to collect acid gase s, a n d the sec ond with citric aci d to co llect NH 3 . The f l us h e n d

of the citric acid-c o ated de nude r was a ttache d directly to the filter m odule. Th e filters were positioned on th e Te flon14 0co ated stain l ess steel screen su ch th at th e air st ream p artic u l ates were trapp ed on t h e Teflon -co ated sid e of t h e filter.

The de nu der s w e re coat e d wi t h a p p r op ri at e coat i n g s o l u t i ons (ci t r i c aci d: 1% wei g ht / v ol um e i n m e t h anol ; so di um

carbonate: 1% w/ v, 1% w/v glycerol in a 1:1 m e thanol/water s o lution). T h e co ate d tubes were drie d with “zero” air

at a rate o f 3 L/min

. Th e d e nu der train s were assem b le d and leak-ch e ck ed i n clean labo rat o ry con d ition s . A b lan k

denuder assem b ly was incl uded with each batch of se ve n de nu der assem b lies sent out i n the field. It was left for

seve n day s i n si d e t h e sam p l e r b u t wa s not c o n n ect e d t o t h e ai rfl ow

.

A m b ien t air w a s dr aw n thr oug h alu m in u m , Tef lo n ® -coat e d PM 10 and PM 2.5 size-selectiv e i n let, th en thro ug h th e

d enud er and filter. Daily (24

- h our) sam p les were co llected b e g i nn ing at m i d n i gh t, at a fl o w rate o f 10 L/min

. In lets

were cleane d and re placed whe n necessa ry. After exc h a ngi ng the de nude rs, leak c h ec ks were pe rform e d to ass u re

syste m in teg r ity.

The c o ated annula r de nude rs from the exposed as sem b lies and fi el d bl an ks w e re e x t r act ed wi t h 1 0 m l ul t r a-pure

water (Millip o r e, Milli-Q UV Plu s wa ter system s), and st o r ed at 4 ° C for a n alysis. T h e water extract from sodi um

carb o n at e-c o at ed de nu de rs was use d f o r t h e det e rm i n at i on o f HO N O , H N O 3 , and H C l. For S O 2 analysis

, 5 m l of the

wat e r e x t r act s f r o m t h e so di um carb o n at e-co at ed de nu de rs were o x i d i z e d wi t h 0. 05 m l of 30 % a q ue ous H 2 0 2

so lu tion t o co m p letel y o x i d i ze th e co llected SO 2 to SO 4 be fore a n alysis. T h e water e x tract from citric acid-coated

denuders wa s used to determ ine amm onia. The m easurem ent of chl o ride

, nitrite, nitrate, s u lfate, a n d amm onium was

mad e w ith a D I ON EX 50 0 Io n Chro m a to g r ap hy System . Th e r e su lts w e r e calcu lated fo r g a seou s H Cl, HO NO

,

HN O 3 , SO 2 , a n d N H 3 . The sepa ration of chl o ri de, nitrite, nitrate and s u lfate was accom p lished usi n g an IonPac AS

1 4 (4 x 25 0 m m ) an alytica l co lu m n , AG 1 4 g u ar d co l u m n , w ith a 10 μ l sam p le lo o p , an d an an ion self-reg e n e rating

su ppresso r-u ltra. A so lu tion o f 3.5 m M Na 2 CO 3 /1.0 m M NaHCO 3 was use d as elue nt at a flow rate of 1 m l/min. The

separation of amm onium was accom p lished using an IonPac CS14 (4 x 250 mm ) analytical colu m n and a C G 14

g u a rd co lu m n with a 50 μ l sam p le loop , a n d a catio n sel f-rege n e rating su p p res so r-ultra. A s o l u tion o f 1 0 m M

methanesulfonic acid was used as el ue nt at

a

fl ow rat e of 1m l / m i n.

Th e Zefluo r filters were u ltrason ically ex tracted for o n e hou r i n 5 m l o f u ltra-p u r e water, th e pH was m easu r ed , and

the sam p les were stored at 4 ° C for an alysis of p a rticu l ate su lfate. Th e filter ex t r acts were an alyzed for p articu l ate

sul f at e by i o n ch r o m a t ogra phy usi n g t h e DI ON E X 10 0 Io n C h r o m a t ogra phy Sy st em . Sel e ni um was al so det e rm i n ed

in so m e o f th e filter ex tracts u s ing i n du ctiv ely coup led p l asm a m ass sp ectro m etry (ICP-MS). C o n cen tratio ns i n t h e

field blanks for t h e target s p ecies were subtracte d on a batch-to-batc h basi s. Acc u racy of calibration c u rves wa s

ch eck ed b y an alyzin g th e qu ality co n tro l sam p les con tain ing th e an alytes of in terest at a co n c en tration i n th e low and

hi g h c once n t rat i o n ra nge p r ovi ded by a n i ndep e nde nt QA/ QC l a b o r a t o ry wi t h i n t h e W a ds wo rt h C e nt er . F o r al l t h e

analytes, the cont rols we re within ± 10 %

. The pe rce n t st an dard de vi at i o n o f m easurem ent s , eval uat e d o n dup l i cat e

ru ns of se veral sam p l e s, was fo u n d t o be bet t e r t h an ± 3. 0 %.

14 1Particu l ate n itrate was orig in ally in cl u d e d i n th e an alyte l i s t but w a s l a t e r dro p p e d beca use o f c once r ns a bou t t h e

accuracy of the re ported concent r atio ns. During the study, res earc h was publis hed that called into ques t i o n

p a rticu l ate n itrate con c en tratio ns co llected o n Teflon f ilters. (Th e ADS u s ed i n th e stud y co llected sam p les on

Teflon filters.) Hi g h e r tem p eratu r es exp e rien ced d u ring t h e d ayti m e in th e su m m er m o n t h s m ay lead to a l o ss o f

particulate nitrate from the sam p le. Tem p eratures inside the ADS encl osure on s o m e days excee de d 108 ° F. Beca use

the ADS was service d only once pe r wee k , sam p les collected after serv icing were subj ect to m o re h i g h -tem p eratu re

peri ods t h a n t h o s e col l ect ed t h e day pri o r t o se rvi c i ng, lik ely in creasing th e po ten tial for p a rticu l ate n itrate

v o l atilizatio n

. Th is i n fo rm atio n

, al o n g w ith i n con s isten c ies found i n th e con c en tration s o f so m e co -lo cated sam p les,

led to t h e rem o v al of p articu l ate/aer osol nitrate from the analyte list.

Po llen an d Mo l d

Week ly p o llen an d m o ld sam p les were co llected with a Bur k ar d Re c o rd ing Vo lu me tr ic S p o r e T r ap ( B urk a r d

M a nu fact u r i n g C o

., Lt d, R i ckm a nswo rt h , E ngl a n d). Pa rt i c l e s were i m pact ed o n a dhe si ve-coat e d M e l i n ex t r a n s p are n t

p l astic tap e

, su ppor ted on a clo c k w o r k- d r i v en d r u m . A f ter a th i n f i l m o f 10 % G e lv at o l w a s app lied t o t h e tap e and

allo wed to dry, th e adh e si v e (Vaselin e and 10 % p a raffin wax in to lu en e) was th en app lied

. Th e clo c kwork dru m

al l o wed f o r

a se ve n-d a y sam p l e t o be c o l l ect ed, wi t h t h e sam p l i ng vo l u m e rangi ng b e t w ee n 9 a n d 1 2 l p m . Aft e r

rem oval of t h e d r um , t h e t a pe w a s sect i o ne d an d vi e w ed as i n di vi d u al day s . Eac h sl i d e wa s m ount e d wi t h gl y ceri n

j e lly an d ph en osafr a n i n stain.

I n d iv i d u a l b io a ero s o l catego r ies w e r e gro u p e d in t o larg er ag gr eg atio n s of p o llen o r m o ld typ e s b a sed on taxono m ic

or

aer ody nam i c rel a t i onshi p s . T h e p o l l e n a n d s p o r e a g gre g a tions use d in statistical analyses are as follows:

14 2Table A2. Bioae r osol Aggregate Cate gories

Po llen Mo ld

Tree Pollens

Abies

, Ac er, Alnus , Betula, Carya,

C u pr

es sa , F a g u s

, F r ax inu s , G i ng ko

,

Jugl an s, Liquida um , Morus, Ole a , Picea,

Pinus, Platanu s, Populu s , Que r cu s, Salix,

Tilia, Tsuga, Ulm u s B a si di os po res

Gano derm a, Co prin us , uni dentified

basi dio spo r es

Grass Po llen s

Grami nea Asco sp ore s

Diatrype, Le ptospha eria, Spo r o r

m iella

,

unide ntified asco spo r e s

R a gwee d Pol l e n

Am brosia Dark Mito spo r es

Alternari a , Arthrini um , Cladospori u m

,

Curvul ari a, Epico c cum

, Helm inthospo rium

,

Nigrospo ra, Peri conium , Pithom yce s,

Torul a , Stem phylium

To tal Po llen s

Tree pol l e n + G r a ss pol l e n + R a gwee d p o l l e n +

Un i d en tified p o llens No n- da rk

M i t o sp o res

Penicillium / Aspergillus, Botryti s

,

Cerco s p o ra, Fusa rium , Oidium

,

Peron o spora, Pestalotiop s is, Polythri nci u m

Sm a ll sp o r es

al l fu ngal s p ores < 10 μ m

Large s p ores

al l fu ngal s p ores > 10 μ m

To tal Mo lds

B a si di os po res + Asc o s p ores + Dar k m i t o spore s

+ No n-dark m ito sp o r es + Un id en tified m o ld

spores

Acet one a n d Al d e hy des

An ATEC Mo del 1 600 au to m ated m u lt i-p o rt sam p ler (Atm o s p h eric Techno log y , Calab a sas, C A ) was u s ed in t h e

collection of sam p les for acet one and al dehy de a n alysis, acc ording t o EPA Met h od T O -11. The ATEC was

pr o g ram m ed wi t h a wee k -l o n g ru n sc he d u l e t o c o l l ect seve n d a i l y 2 4 -hour sam p l e s. C h a n nel s ra n c o nsec ut i v el y

fr om m i dni g h t t o m i dni ght

. Ai r was d ra wn t h r o ug h ca rt ri dges co nt ai ni ng 2

, 4-di ni t r o p h eny l hy drazi ne- (DNPH-)

coated silica (Wate rs C o rp., M ilford, MA). Fo ll o w i n g co llectio n, t h e sam p le s were elute d from the ca rtridge as the

DN PH de ri vat i v e , t h e n a n al y zed by HPLC wi t h U V det ect i o n . Fl ows va ri ed bet w een 0

. 28 an d 0. 2 9 l p m , y i el di ng

14 3ap pro x i m ate sam p le v o l u m es o f 403 to 417 liters. Act u al sam p le v o l u m es an d run tim es were record ed b y the

instrum e nt and were used for conce n tr ation calcu lation s . After t h e installatio n of t h e n ew cartri d g es, and p r i o r t o

resu m p tio n of th e sam p lin g ru n, all po rts were ch eck e d for leak s. A d e n u d e r box was attach ed to t h e in let p o rt to

rem ove oz o n e f r o m t h e sam p l e st ream (usi n g a p o t a ssi um i odi de -coat e d c o ppe r c o i l )

. The s e bo xes we re re pl ace d at

three- to four-wee k inte rvals. T h e a n alytes m easur ed were acetalde hyde, acetone, ac rolein, be nzalde hyde

,

but y r al dehy de, c r ot o n al de hy de, 2 ,5

- di m e t h y l benzal de hy de , fo rm al dehy de

, hexal d e h y d e, i s ov al eral de hy de

,

pr o p i o nal d e h y d e, m

- t o l u al dehy de, o

- t o l u al dehy de, p

- t o l u al dehy de a n d val e ral d e h y d e

. Det ect i on l i m i t was 1 μg/ m 3

.

SO 2 Determina tio n

The T h e r m o En vi ro nm ent a l Inst r u m e nt s (TE I ) M o del 4 3 C SO 2 Pul se d Fluoresce n ce Analyzer has bee n designated

by EP A as E qui val e nt S O 2 Anal y zer ( N o. E QS A -048 6

- 060 )

. P u l s at i n g U V l i g ht i s f o cuse d t h r o ug h a na rr ow ban d

p a ss o f 190 n a no m e ters th at d i rects it in to th e fluo re scence cham ber. Sam p led am bient air containi ng SO 2 flows

co n tinuo usly th ro ugh t h e ch am b e r, wh ere th e UV ligh t ex cites th e SO 2 m o lecu les cau s i n g th em to emit th eir

characte r istic decay ra diation. T h is SO 2 -specific rad iatio n p a sses thro ugh a second filter an d o n t o a sen s itiv e pho to

m u l tip lier tu b e . In co m in g lig h t en erg y is tran sform e d elect ro n i cally in t o a 0

- 5 VDC outpu t sign al t h at is d i rectly

pr o p o r t i onal t o t h e c once n t r at i o n of S O 2 in th e sam p le air.

NO/NO 2 /NO

x Determina tion

The T h e r m o En vi ro nm ent a l Inst r u m e nt s (TE I ) M o del 4 2 N O / N O 2 /NO

x an alyzers u tilize th e tech n i qu e o f

photom etric detection of c h em ilu minescent light resulting from the flam eless reaction of nitric ox ide (NO) with

ozo n e ( O 3 ) for i n terfe re nce-free m easurem ent of NO 2 . T h e analyzer incl udes a NO

x -t o-NO hea t e d m o l y bden u m

co nv erter to ch ang e NO 2 i n t o N O f o r su bse que nt m easurem ent vi a t h e c h em i l u m i nescent det ect i o n m e t hod. The

a m b i en t air sam p le en ters Mo del 4 2 th rou g h a sing le flow-c o n t ro l cap illary and is d irected to a so len o i d v a lv e. Th e

so leno id v a l v e rou tes th e sam p le eith er thro u gh th e NO 2 - t o

- N O c onver t er (N O

x m o d e ) or ar ound t h e con v e r ter ( N O

m o d e )

. W h en f l ow ing t h ro ugh th e conv er ter

, t h e ch em iluminescence m easure d w ithin t h e reaction cham ber

represen ts th e NO

x c once n t r at i o n. B y passi ng t h e c o nve rt er al l o ws m easurem ent of the NO lev e l on ly. Th e sign als

gene rat e d i n t h e t w o m odes are st o r ed an d hel d i n m e m o ry by t h e i n st r u m e nt ’s m i crocom put er, w h ere t h e di f f ere n ce

bet w ee n t h em i s use d t o gene rat e a N O 2 si gnal . T h e di gi t a l

- t o -anal o g c o nve rt er t h en co n v ert s t h e t h ree st ore d val u es

in to an alog si g n a ls th at are o u t pu t t o th e rear of th e i n stru m e n t . Th e NO an d NO

x conc e n trati ons calculated in t h e

NO an d N O

x m odes a r e store d in m e m o ry. The differe n ce betwee n t h e co n c entration s is u s ed t o calcu late th e NO 2

co n c en tration

.

Ozon e Determina tio n

The T h e r m o En vi ro nm ent a l Inst r u m e nt s (TE I ) M o del 4 9

- Ul t r a v i o l e t P h ot om et er ozo n e a n al y zer has bee n desi g n at e d

by U .S. EP A as an eq ui val e nt m e t hod fo r t h e m easurem ent of am bi ent con cen t r at i o n of oz on e p u rs ua nt t o t h e

req u i r em ent s de fi ne d i n 4 0 C F R Part 5 3

. It s desi g n at ed e qui val e nce m e t hod n u m b er i s E Q QA -0880-047. Th e U V

ph ot om et er det e rm i n es oz o n e c once n t r at i o ns b y m easuri n g the attenu atio n o f ligh t d u e to o z one in th e ab so rp tio n

14 4cell, at a w a v e leng th of 25 4 n a no m e te rs. Th e con cen t r atio n o f o z on e is d i rectly related to th e m a g n itud e o f th e

attenuation. T h e refere nce ozone -free gas passes into the ab sorption cell to establis h a “zero” light i n tensity readi n g

(I

o ). Th e so len o id th en switch e s, an d th e sam p le p a sses thro u gh th e absorp tion cell to estab lish a “sam p l e” lig h t

in ten s ity read ing (I). Th e ratio o f th ese read in gs (I/ I

o ) is a m easure of t h e light a b sorbed by oz one in t h e sam p le at

2 54n m

. It is d i rectly related to t h e con cen tration of o z one i n the sam p le through the Beer-Lam bert Law. A sec o nd

d e tecto r is used to m o n itor th e ch ang e s i n lig h t in ten s ity and to c o rrect for t h ese c h a nges

. This system is basically

two ph o t o m eters u tilizin g two sep a rate bu t sim i lar ab so rp tio n cells an d d e tect o r system s. Th ey sh are th e sam e

so ur ce. Th ese two ph o t o m eter s o p e r a te 1 8 0 d e g r ees ou t o f ph ase bu t syn c h r onou sly an d in tegr ate th e sign als

si m u ltan eo u s ly: thu s I i n cell B (I(B )) is d eterm in ed at th e i d en tical tim e I

o in cell A (I

o (A)) i s determ ined. The

so leno id s th en switch

, and after an app r op riate fl u s h tim e (ap p r ox im ate l y 7 second s), I

o (B) a n d I( A ) are dete rm ined.

Taking t h e a v era g e value of t h ese two rea d ings factors out t

h e flu ctu ati o n in lam p in ten s ity. Th e m i cro co m p u t er i n

th e TEI Mod e l 49 so lv es th e Beer-Lam b e rt eq u a tion d irectly fo r each cell an d ou tpu ts th e av erag e co n c en tration i n

bot h t h e f ro n t p a nel di gi t a l di spl a y a n d t h e rec o r d er anal og ou t p ut

.

Meteorol ogic a l Dat a

Tem p erat ure, rel a t i v e hum i d i t y , and wi nd spee d a n d di rect i o n were l ogged w i t h a Y o un g 2 7 6 0 0 P r og ram m abl e

Tran sl at or (R .M

. Y o un g C o

., Tr ave r se C i t y , M I ). T h e u n i t l o g g e d t h e dat a f r om t h e r o of -m ount e d wi n d m oni t o r an d

r e lativ e hu m id ity/ te m p e r a tu r e prob e ( M od els 053 05 and 41 3 72LC, r e sp ectiv ely, fr o m R.M. You n g C o .)

.

Flow R a tes

Flow rates f o r th e T SI, UR G, an d T E OM -ACC U were ch eck e d an d calib rated with a DryCal DC-1 d i g i t a l flow

calibrator (B IOS International, Pom p ton Plains, NJ). T h e NIST-tracea ble DryCal DC-1 has a n acc uracy of ± 1%,

wi t h a w o rst

- case resol u t i o n of 0. 2%

.

Statistica l Metho d s

Mu ltiva r ia te p r ocedu r es

Sq uare S p earm a n co rrel a t i o n m a t r i ces were use d as i n put t o the MDS procedure im ple m ented in SYSTAT v. 9

(SPSS Inc

. ). The SYST AT procedure creat es d i ssim ilarit y m atrices fro m co rrelatio n m atrices b y tak i n g th e n e g ativ e

of all correlation coefficients. M D S di st ances are t h e n c o m put ed fr om di ssi m i l a ri ti es. Tw o-di m e nsi o nal M D S

con f i g urat i o ns we re ge nerat e d f o r eac h c o r r el at i on m a t r i x using SYSTAT d e fau lts fo r nu m b er of iteration s and for

conve r ge nce c r iteria. Am ong the t h ree possi ble loss func tion s (Kru sk al, Gu ttm an , You n g ) av ailab l e in t h e SYSTAT

p r o c ed ure, t h e Gu ttm an lo ss fun c tion (W ilk i n so n 199 9) g e nerally explaine d the greates t pro por tio n of v a r iance in

prelim inary analyses and t h erefore was use d t h r o u g h o u t

. Sh epa r d di a g ram s an d out put of t h e G u t t m an coeffi ci ent o f

alien a tio n at each iteration step were used as diagno stics fo r d e g e n e rate so lu ti o n s

.

MDS c o nfiguration pl ots we re c o nstructed for each corre lation m a trix. Non-m e tric MDS re-scales m easures of

di ssi m i l a ri t y bet w een vari a b l e s s o t h at t h e rank o r de r of di st an ces bet w ee n vari a b l e s i n t h e M D S pl ot co rres p on d a s

14 5clo s ely as po ssi b l e to th e rank ord e r o f d i ssim ilarit i es b e tween v a riab les in the o r i g in al m u lti-d i m e n s io n a l sp ace.

Wh en d i ssim ilari ties b e tween v a riab les are m easu r ed with c o rrelation coe fficie n ts, the distance betwee n varia b les in

th e MDS p l o t ind i cates th e stren g t h o f th eir correlation

. Th e p l o t s were i n terpreted qu alitativ ely b y ob serv ing

wh et h e r po in ts rep r esen ting th e po llu tan t an alytes clu s tere d clo s ely tog e th er (i nd icatin g stro ng po sitiv e co rrelatio n

am ong va ri abl e s ) or w h et he r poi nt s were fa r ap art (i n d i cat i ng l a rge ne gat i v e co rrel a t i o ns)

. Int e rm edi a t e di st ances

bet w ee n vari a b l e s were i ndi cat i v e of relativ ely weak asso ciatio ns.

Rectan gu lar d a ta m a trices were u s ed as inp u t t o th e HC p ro ced ure i m pl em ent e d i n S Y ST AT v. 9 (S PSS I n c. ).

Pears o n correlations ( r ) were use d t o calculate t h e distance m etric ( d ) be t w ee n vari a b l e s, whe r e d = 1

– r

.

Com p lete-linkage hiera r chical cl ustering was use d t o c o nstruct a tree diagram repre senting distances bet w ee n

clu s ters o f v a riab les. As in MDS, t h e tree d i agram s were i n terp reted q u a litativ ely b y o b s erv i ng wh ich v a riab les

t e nde d t o be st ro n g l y ass o ci at ed wi t h eac h ot her a n d whet her co nsi s t e nt cl ust e ri ng o f vari a b l e s coul d b e

o b s erv ed. In th e cl u s ter t r ees, dist an ces b e tween v a riab les or cl u s ters n e ar zero rep r esen t st rong p o s itiv e

correlations , while distances nea r tw o re presen t st r o ng ne gat i v e co rrel a t i o ns . Interm ediate distances represent

weak correlations betwee n va riables or clusters.

14 6Appe ndix 2 – De tailed Data S u mm ar y

14 7Appendix 2 - Summary of DataDescriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

pHWinter99Bronx---------0795.50.46.86.35.75.55.34.94.5Manhattan---------0795.50.610.06.05.65.45.24.94.8Spring99Bronx---------0925.20.57.16.05.55.24.84.34.0Manhattan---------0925.10.45.95.75.35.14.84.44.2Summer99Bronx---------58364.80.56.06.05.04.64.44.24.1Manhattan---------3914.60.45.65.54.94.64.33.93.5Fall99Bronx---------0905.20.56.66.55.55.24.84.44.2Manhattan---------0905.10.45.95.75.45.14.94.44.3Winter00Bronx---------0895.30.46.36.05.65.35.04.74.5Manhattan---------0895.20.35.85.75.55.35.04.74.6Spring00Bronx---------0925.10.56.55.95.45.04.84.34.0Manhattan---------0925.00.45.65.55.25.04.84.34.0Summer00Bronx---------7874.80.46.35.65.04.84.54.34.1Manhattan---------7874.80.45.75.55.04.74.54.34.1Fall00Bronx---------0625.10.46.45.85.45.14.84.64.5Manhattan---------2605.10.35.85.65.35.14.94.54.4

Su l f a t e (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---------00792.931.567.366.453.382.651.741.040.80Manhattan---------00793.011.638.846.563.542.781.890.740.60Spring99Bronx---------01913.222.9315.609.593.682.201.360.940.51Manhattan---------00923.352.8714.4310.153.922.381.510.840.77Summer99Bronx---------158355.164.5417.4915.637.283.601.740.440.12Manhattan---------05896.325.6623.8817.658.634.071.870.770.41Fall99Bronx---------10893.052.7019.477.383.892.171.360.730.12Manhattan---------02883.162.219.618.184.182.401.560.780.64Winter00Bronx---------07822.921.817.787.163.752.371.551.090.86Manhattan---------01883.141.939.447.464.072.461.681.110.89Spring00Bronx---------00924.013.2515.7111.955.012.911.730.930.67Manhattan---------01914.103.1015.2311.115.122.992.060.940.50Summer00Bronx---------07874.973.6513.8212.587.094.252.010.600.40Manhattan---------07875.053.5213.5012.166.944.322.070.510.30Fall00Bronx---------00623.302.9613.579.654.002.431.380.470.36Manhattan---------02603.372.8612.179.704.082.621.310.550.28

C arbon 250 (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---2------965342.4780.7916.9583.9882.8522.2851.9651.5081.126Manhattan328------675252.7360.7957.2824.0953.1272.6652.2361.6261.196Spring99Bronx---6------77232.9750.9187.6404.9313.3072.7262.3611.9381.427Manhattan896------166252.7381.0746.4894.7793.3032.6502.0851.2021.071Summer99Bronx114------4672703.7100.9355.8845.3894.4193.6502.9952.4451.712Manhattan52------37423.4711.0509.8565.3323.9873.2992.7522.1491.803Fall99Bronx32------1195963.6370.6729.4864.7573.8983.4803.1902.9402.364Manhattan4---------147022.9590.9558.6804.5413.4392.7692.2631.7701.199Winter00Bronx31------156933.2060.7636.2764.8443.5153.0432.7372.2281.720Manhattan---3------186912.6311.0458.6264.5523.0212.3991.9491.4091.064Spring00Bronx1---------656703.6970.4705.6704.6613.8483.6423.4323.0012.647Manhattan------------696673.3271.12110.7555.5883.8373.0012.5812.0761.674Summer00Bronx---4------107383.1820.8227.5284.3933.7353.2012.5641.8811.306Manhattan---5------87393.3330.4475.5204.1353.5953.2713.0262.7192.354Fall00Bronx---11------44812.5250.8015.5903.7783.0552.5881.9171.3051.089Manhattan413------54743.4710.5816.6064.5613.7533.3883.0802.7651.591Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

S oot C a rbon (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---18------985161.5921.1859.5283.9431.9701.2630.8440.4770.281Manhattan32119------674141.6891.0199.6463.3952.0611.4381.0630.6610.280Spring99Bronx312------77141.1460.8246.4942.7741.2980.9040.6400.4280.242Manhattan90172------174571.4771.15110.2003.4121.7771.1590.7680.5000.288Summer99Bronx---19------4672661.0690.6133.9132.2321.3520.9590.6160.3680.281Manhattan284------46621.4130.9749.9933.0311.7611.1970.8100.4910.217Fall99Bronx313------1205841.3380.9957.1573.5771.5291.0210.7210.4620.288Manhattan27------146971.4270.9748.7033.2731.7241.1410.8350.5220.332Winter00Bronx---5------156921.4011.0476.8903.6891.6291.0140.7140.5210.386Manhattan---5------186891.3530.8609.0803.1441.5971.1110.8090.5500.332Spring00Bronx119------666500.9240.7155.8732.2681.0790.6900.5070.3550.255Manhattan---3------696641.2280.8375.6622.8121.5330.9710.6620.4140.259Summer00Bronx---5------137341.0270.6906.9002.1541.2500.8590.5800.3960.255Manhattan---1------137380.9740.4462.8671.8591.2120.8740.6490.4090.259Fall00Bronx------------174791.0630.8205.2902.6931.2310.8320.5360.3440.258Manhattan6---------204701.1820.7366.3562.4351.4570.9890.7020.4800.372

O 3 (ppm )Winter99Bronx---0------12896070.0170.0110.0460.0330.0260.0170.0070.0020.000Manhattan---0------88210140.0060.0060.0330.0180.0090.0040.0020.000-0.001Spring99Bronx---0------14320650.0210.0150.1050.0450.0300.0200.0080.0020.000Manhattan---0------8421240.0160.0130.0900.0380.0230.0130.0050.001-0.001Summer99Bronx---0------19752810.0340.0200.1040.0660.0460.0300.0200.0080.003Manhattan---0------4922070.0210.0190.1220.0560.0300.0150.0060.001-0.001Fall99Bronx---0------85713030.0070.0070.0360.0220.0110.0040.0010.000-0.001Manhattan---0------8120790.0050.0060.0470.0180.0070.0030.0010.000-0.001Winter00Bronx---34------720950.0100.0090.0370.0260.0160.0070.0020.001-0.001Manhattan---51------220830.0060.0060.0300.0170.0090.0040.001-0.001-0.002Spring00Bronx---51------021570.0200.0160.1100.0490.0280.0170.0080.0010.000Manhattan---198------020100.0160.0140.0870.0410.0220.0120.0050.000-0.002Summer00Bronx---46------022100.0210.0170.0800.0560.0310.0170.0070.0010.000Manhattan---134------021220.0160.0150.0720.0460.0250.0120.0040.001-0.001Fall00Bronx---35------014530.0090.0090.0610.0270.0140.0050.0020.0010.000Manhattan---52------014360.0060.0070.0560.0200.0090.0040.0010.000-0.002

NO X (ppm )Winter99Bronx---0------18960---------------------------Manhattan---0------7918170.0860.0510.5400.1810.1030.0720.0530.0380.016Spring99Bronx---0------33118770.0440.0420.3510.1200.0560.0330.021-0.002-0.003Manhattan---0------74414640.0610.0390.3500.1400.0710.0500.0380.0230.010Summer99Bronx---0------17115450.0380.0250.1960.0880.0460.0330.0210.0120.006Manhattan---0------5821980.0480.0290.2500.1030.0580.0410.0300.0190.008Fall99Bronx---0------12319290.0610.0560.4770.1610.0710.0450.0280.0160.000Manhattan---0------7620840.0780.0540.5510.1800.0930.0630.0440.0280.008Winter00Bronx---275------24016210.0720.0620.5630.1940.0830.0520.0340.0210.009Manhattan---63------520680.0840.0490.4600.1830.1010.0700.0510.0350.020Spring00Bronx---58------021500.0510.0460.4730.1390.0570.0380.0250.0140.006Manhattan---384------018240.0570.0360.3340.1200.0690.0480.0350.0200.009Summer00Bronx---749------015070.0370.0220.1590.0800.0460.0320.0220.0130.005Manhattan---157------020990.0480.0240.2160.0920.0590.0420.0310.0200.009Fall00Bronx---45------014430.0620.0570.4670.1670.0720.0450.0290.0180.008Manhattan---62------014260.0740.0510.4610.1750.0890.0620.0400.0250.011Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

NO ( ppm )Winter99Bronx---0------18960---------------------------Manhattan---0------7918170.0480.0450.4450.1320.0610.0340.0190.0090.001Spring99Bronx---0------33118770.0150.0300.2710.0620.0150.0040.000-0.002-0.002Manhattan---0------74514630.0230.0300.2780.0810.0270.0130.0060.002-0.001Summer99Bronx---0------17115450.0080.0170.1530.0370.0080.002-0.001-0.002-0.003Manhattan---0------5821980.0140.0210.2090.0560.0170.0070.0030.000-0.001Fall99Bronx---0------12319290.0300.0490.4150.1160.0320.0120.005-0.001-0.003Manhattan---0------8820720.0450.0480.4720.1380.0550.0300.0150.0040.000Winter00Bronx---275------24016210.0360.0510.4520.1380.0390.0170.0080.002-0.001Manhattan---63------520680.0470.0420.3920.1310.0600.0340.0190.0080.001Spring00Bronx---60------021480.0180.0350.3980.0820.0160.0060.0020.0000.000Manhattan---384------018240.0210.0270.2620.0660.0250.0120.0060.0030.001Summer00Bronx---749------015070.0090.0130.1000.0370.0110.0030.0010.0000.000Manhattan---157------020990.0160.0180.1700.0500.0200.0100.0050.0010.000Fall00Bronx---45------014430.0320.0480.3910.1210.0340.0170.0070.0020.000Manhattan---62------014260.0410.0440.4020.1290.0510.0270.0130.004-0.001

NO 2 ( ppm )Winter99Bronx---0------18960---------------------------Manhattan---0------7918170.0390.0090.1170.0540.0440.0370.0320.0260.015Spring99Bronx---0------33118770.0290.0170.1120.0590.0400.0290.0190.000-0.001Manhattan---0------74414640.0390.0120.0880.0610.0470.0380.0300.0200.011Summer99Bronx---0------17115450.0310.0130.0940.0540.0390.0300.0210.0130.008Manhattan---0------5921970.0360.0130.0940.0610.0430.0340.0250.0170.009Fall99Bronx---0------12319290.0310.0120.0850.0520.0390.0310.0220.0130.000Manhattan---0------7420860.0340.0090.0790.0510.0400.0340.0280.0210.000Winter00Bronx---274------24016220.0360.0140.1140.0600.0450.0340.0240.0170.000Manhattan---63------520680.0380.0100.1180.0560.0430.0370.0310.0250.005Spring00Bronx---58------021500.0330.0150.0980.0600.0410.0300.0220.0130.007Manhattan---385------018230.0370.0140.1020.0610.0460.0350.0280.0170.009Summer00Bronx---749------015070.0280.0130.0820.0520.0350.0270.0190.0110.006Manhattan---157------020990.0330.0110.0790.0530.0400.0320.0250.0180.010Fall00Bronx---45------014430.0300.0140.1010.0580.0380.0260.0200.0130.008Manhattan---62------014260.0340.0120.0820.0590.0410.0320.0260.0170.013

SO 2 (ppm )Winter99Bronx---0------4218540.0150.0100.0780.0350.0190.0130.0070.0040.001Manhattan---0------4918470.0200.0100.0960.0380.0250.0180.0130.0090.004Spring99Bronx---0------4921590.0080.0060.0530.0190.0100.0060.0040.0020.001Manhattan---0------5121570.0100.0060.0580.0230.0120.0080.0060.0040.003Summer99Bronx---0------17045520.0070.0040.0360.0150.0090.0050.0030.0020.001Manhattan---0------5322030.0080.0060.0920.0170.0100.0060.0040.0020.001Fall99Bronx---0------33318270.0130.0100.0980.0330.0160.0100.0070.0040.000Manhattan---0------7220880.0130.0090.0820.0300.0160.0100.0070.0030.001Winter00Bronx---36------520950.0180.0120.1120.0410.0220.0150.0100.0050.002Manhattan---54------320790.0200.0120.0970.0430.0250.0170.0120.0070.003Spring00Bronx---45------021630.0070.0060.0530.0180.0090.0060.0040.0020.001Manhattan---365------018430.0080.0060.0560.0190.0110.0060.0040.002-0.008Summer00Bronx---42------022140.0060.0050.0570.0160.0070.0050.0030.0020.001Manhattan---492------017640.0060.0050.0880.0160.0080.0050.0030.0010.001Fall00Bronx---35------014530.0130.0080.0680.0290.0160.0100.0070.0040.002Manhattan---43------014450.0120.0090.0530.0280.0170.0100.0060.0030.001Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

PM 2.5 (T E O M ) ( ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------17187914.989.2775.6031.9420.2113.358.392.68-0.08Manhattan------------17187915.297.6375.9128.7819.3113.6410.225.72-0.06Spring99Bronx------------34217414.029.1668.1332.2917.3412.108.062.46-0.09Manhattan------------78213014.919.2768.8033.7118.2212.768.674.58-0.09Summer99Bronx------------170155521.1712.8561.3745.2729.7920.3310.573.36-0.09Manhattan---39------2221520.4214.4794.7647.9728.5317.429.561.77-0.10Fall99Bronx------------792136815.2210.1574.1034.0621.4613.017.692.76-0.49Manhattan---407------3175015.549.7376.9233.7121.2013.408.403.70-4.63Winter00Bronx---------76206014.459.6177.9833.1718.7312.357.832.90-0.78Manhattan---3------20211314.728.4770.7031.6018.7612.658.605.36-1.16Spring00Bronx------------92211615.5011.6391.8039.6019.9612.227.653.03-7.12Manhattan------------397181115.1411.0778.3838.2919.0412.588.253.10-21.82Summer00Bronx---192------4206016.7110.8386.4337.4023.5514.148.583.12-6.13Manhattan---375------2187917.6212.2357.1341.8025.0515.128.921.86-29.64Fall00Bronx---229------0125914.4410.1752.6037.0418.3311.727.342.80-0.40Manhattan---109------0137915.0810.0274.2636.3719.8812.437.913.97-1.18

PM 10 ( T EOM) ( ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------98890819.7810.95109.8640.2023.1617.1612.798.36-0.06Manhattan---20------14186219.558.7795.9235.6423.9117.8813.968.571.54Spring99Bronx------------31217722.3511.75101.4345.7127.5519.5014.069.28-0.07Manhattan------------26218221.6310.3771.5042.3226.8119.3114.389.06-0.04Summer99Bronx---167------169839127.3014.7191.8856.4035.6925.9415.778.623.04Manhattan---30------3222326.1114.4593.8453.6334.8423.1415.157.460.61Fall99Bronx---140------756126419.4212.7291.8044.1926.4815.3110.066.130.59Manhattan---1258------090222.1213.19111.3047.6626.4618.5613.018.35-3.41Winter00Bronx------------216192020.5613.39150.7645.1724.5816.9012.067.560.98Manhattan---3------25210822.3512.18125.1142.8827.0119.7614.558.90-1.89Spring00Bronx------------570163824.6416.14105.8558.8732.0119.6912.807.26-0.70Manhattan------------476173223.8215.09120.6156.9729.1620.0313.727.70-32.34Summer00Bronx---13------5223823.5012.4898.0347.6231.5020.4413.748.200.20Manhattan---139------2211525.3315.26345.5147.8732.2423.0115.509.13-12.21Fall00Bronx---10------0147821.7813.6079.7450.0228.1417.7011.967.092.98Manhattan---24------0146422.5913.64106.4849.8729.2519.1112.777.121.88

A cetaldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------011782.21.27.74.72.81.71.41.00.5Manhattan------000792.10.95.54.02.62.01.41.01.0Spring99Bronx------008842.21.16.94.22.71.91.61.11.0Manhattan------000922.71.05.94.83.22.52.01.51.1Summer99Bronx------0065292.91.04.54.33.53.12.11.41.3Manhattan------518863.82.713.69.55.23.01.90.50.5Fall99Bronx------0013772.51.37.44.93.42.11.51.20.9Manhattan------001892.71.27.15.23.22.31.81.31.0Winter00Bronx------010892.31.410.44.62.71.91.51.10.5Manhattan------000892.61.410.74.62.92.21.81.41.2Spring00Bronx------008844.42.512.78.95.44.12.61.50.1Manhattan------000922.61.36.25.43.12.31.71.20.1Summer00Bronx------002922.30.94.83.83.02.21.61.00.9Manhattan------201932.40.94.83.92.92.31.61.10.5Fall00Bronx------107552.11.46.65.53.01.61.11.00.5Manhattan------008542.41.57.05.83.21.91.31.01.0Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

A cetone (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------001789.68.135.330.09.16.64.73.31.3Manhattan------000797.03.722.015.07.86.24.82.31.9Spring99Bronx------008848.03.318.013.410.17.75.73.71.0Manhattan------000928.811.6116.013.39.07.26.04.41.1Summer99Bronx------0065297.03.515.313.09.86.24.32.01.7Manhattan------2118867.66.940.422.29.96.42.90.50.5Fall99Bronx------0013775.62.814.710.77.55.03.42.11.5Manhattan------001896.82.716.112.68.06.55.03.22.1Winter00Bronx------010894.52.512.910.45.23.62.82.10.5Manhattan------000895.42.515.810.86.24.83.92.81.4Spring00Bronx------008849.76.238.521.111.87.85.83.50.2Manhattan------000926.62.313.310.97.86.55.03.20.2Summer00Bronx------002925.93.734.19.97.45.73.81.61.0Manhattan------201936.12.815.310.87.95.84.21.40.5Fall00Bronx------007556.03.215.912.08.34.93.72.72.3Manhattan------008547.03.621.213.09.45.94.43.32.6

A c rolein (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------0848840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0920920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------02965290.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------5738861.53.417.311.70.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------07713770.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0891890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------0880890.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0890890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------0848840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0920920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------5872920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------7861930.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------0557550.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0548540.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

B enzaldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------7778840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------2900920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------121765290.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------40348860.70.52.32.00.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------443113770.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------63221890.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------33530890.50.00.70.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------42460890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------20118840.70.32.21.30.70.50.50.50.4Manhattan------57300920.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------8832920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------8931930.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------37167550.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------34198540.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

B u tyraldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0750790.81.27.44.00.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------8428840.80.42.41.41.10.50.50.50.5Manhattan------5140921.81.26.03.82.81.31.00.50.5Summer99Bronx------13765290.70.41.51.41.10.50.50.50.5Manhattan------4858861.00.94.33.11.20.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------413613770.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------62241890.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------27590890.50.00.70.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------27280890.60.31.51.30.60.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------12108841.60.94.13.32.11.70.50.50.5Manhattan------59220920.50.00.70.60.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------6822920.50.11.10.80.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------5341930.60.21.51.20.60.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------39157550.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------36158540.50.11.01.00.50.50.50.50.5

C r otonaldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------0618841.00.93.32.91.30.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0740920.80.73.52.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------31865290.90.83.33.01.10.50.50.50.5Manhattan------38188861.41.57.14.51.60.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------212013770.90.62.62.11.20.50.50.50.5Manhattan------15101891.00.63.22.11.30.80.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------1910890.80.42.11.61.00.70.50.50.5Manhattan------1000890.90.42.31.71.00.80.60.50.5Spring00Bronx------0828840.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0900920.50.00.70.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------0922920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0931930.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------0557550.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0548540.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

F o rm aldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------001783.01.37.86.23.52.72.21.41.2Manhattan------000793.31.510.06.73.93.02.21.61.4Spring99Bronx------008843.92.012.78.34.73.32.72.21.8Manhattan------000924.51.79.77.85.14.23.32.52.2Summer99Bronx------0065296.42.310.910.87.75.94.73.53.5Manhattan------018867.53.015.412.69.97.25.33.60.5Fall99Bronx------0013773.91.79.96.84.93.62.51.91.1Manhattan------001894.01.58.96.74.93.92.72.11.7Winter00Bronx------000893.01.711.56.43.72.41.91.51.3Manhattan------000893.21.69.85.83.72.72.31.81.4Spring00Bronx------0188411.815.063.253.910.26.55.02.10.5Manhattan------010924.12.210.59.34.73.42.61.80.5Summer00Bronx------002924.81.58.57.56.14.63.62.62.1Manhattan------001934.61.58.07.25.64.53.52.52.3Fall00Bronx------007553.31.88.87.04.62.62.01.41.2Manhattan------008543.51.88.97.04.43.02.31.61.4Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

H exaldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------8648840.60.32.80.80.50.50.50.50.4Manhattan------6630920.50.21.31.00.50.50.50.40.1Summer99Bronx------131565290.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------6198862.34.423.311.60.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------472513770.50.00.80.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------68121890.50.10.90.70.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------13740890.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------25590890.50.00.70.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------8118842.43.522.09.92.01.20.70.50.5Manhattan------52170920.60.22.21.00.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------7442920.50.21.70.90.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------5541930.60.42.51.60.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------38157550.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------4388540.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5

Isovaleraldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------0848840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0920920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------12465290.70.63.31.70.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------29458860.81.16.43.40.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------185813770.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------22661890.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------16700890.50.00.70.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------21620890.50.10.90.60.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------12508840.70.42.21.60.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------16640920.50.11.20.90.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------68112920.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------65111930.50.10.80.60.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------30237550.50.11.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------22328540.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

m

- T o lualdehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------1838840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0920920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------42565290.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------3838860.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------27513770.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------2871890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------0890890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0890890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------1838840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------3890920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------0922920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0931930.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------3527550.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------1538540.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

o-T o lualdehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------1838840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------3890920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------22365290.70.42.12.00.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------29558860.50.22.00.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------86913770.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------8801890.50.00.90.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------0890890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0890890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------6778840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------3890920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------4882920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------7851930.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------0557550.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------1538540.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

p-T o lualdehyde ( ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------2828840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0920920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------72265290.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------24588860.50.21.70.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------165913770.50.11.10.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------22671890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------10690890.50.11.30.60.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------16630890.50.11.50.80.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------20188840.80.52.81.80.90.50.50.50.5Manhattan------34370920.70.53.41.90.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------55122920.60.21.41.10.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------5681930.60.11.30.90.60.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------4337550.60.31.71.30.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------4618540.60.21.41.20.50.50.50.50.5

P r opionaldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0691780.81.16.93.80.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------8378841.62.314.85.71.60.50.50.50.4Manhattan------9450921.52.516.36.91.30.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------10065292.32.812.19.02.01.50.50.50.5Manhattan------3438862.22.18.76.63.11.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------51513770.60.21.41.00.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------6141890.60.21.81.10.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------6910890.60.21.31.00.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------6900890.50.11.40.80.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------2518841.00.86.22.21.10.70.50.50.5Manhattan------5810920.60.21.31.10.60.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------5722920.60.11.40.80.60.50.50.50.5Manhattan------5321930.60.11.10.90.60.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------4267550.60.21.41.10.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------4158540.60.21.51.10.50.50.50.50.5Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

V a leraldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------2788840.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.3Manhattan------2850920.50.22.50.50.50.50.50.50.3Summer99Bronx------72265290.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------16628860.70.63.92.10.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------205713770.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------44451890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------2860890.50.00.60.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------13760890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------28198840.90.84.23.20.70.50.50.50.5Manhattan------35570920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------49432920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------56361930.50.11.30.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------11447550.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------12428540.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

2,5-D i m e thylbenzaldehyde (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------0781780.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0790790.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring99Bronx------0848840.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0920920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer99Bronx------02965290.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0868860.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall99Bronx------57213770.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------5841890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Winter00Bronx------0890890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0890890.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Spring00Bronx------2778840.50.10.90.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0920920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Summer00Bronx------2902920.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------4881930.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Fall00Bronx------0557550.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5Manhattan------0548540.50.00.50.50.50.50.50.50.5

T o tal A l dehydes (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------17815.110.153.638.717.510.68.56.35.7Manhattan------------07912.75.827.527.315.511.58.75.24.7Spring99Bronx------------88416.78.043.832.021.215.010.57.56.5Manhattan------------09219.612.8122.934.822.117.114.28.96.7Summer99Bronx------------652919.96.130.029.525.220.114.410.710.2Manhattan------------98526.718.993.966.432.920.215.68.35.8Fall99Bronx------------137712.96.333.424.617.010.57.56.64.5Manhattan------------18914.76.138.627.717.013.79.97.76.8Winter00Bronx------------08910.96.640.324.512.98.76.74.92.3Manhattan------------08912.76.037.823.513.311.28.96.86.3Spring00Bronx------------88432.429.8134.1104.032.622.715.56.90.3Manhattan------------09214.36.734.929.916.812.49.76.60.3Summer00Bronx------------29213.85.439.122.817.713.09.77.25.9Manhattan------------19314.35.127.022.618.113.810.06.94.8Fall00Bronx------------75511.87.436.825.116.29.06.84.93.8Manhattan------------85413.47.439.925.816.910.98.06.35.2Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

Ch r o mi u m (ng/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---------770795.116.5107.62.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------770792.71.313.72.52.52.52.52.52.5Spring99Bronx---------910922.50.46.52.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------911912.50.02.52.52.52.52.52.52.5Summer99Bronx---------3559352.50.02.52.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------848862.60.55.92.52.52.52.52.52.5Fall99Bronx---------862882.60.56.02.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------891892.50.02.52.52.52.52.52.52.5Winter00Bronx---------779802.70.99.02.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------844852.61.213.52.52.52.52.52.52.5Spring00Bronx---------827852.60.77.52.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------893892.50.02.52.52.52.52.52.52.5Summer00Bronx---------912922.60.810.02.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------8111832.93.130.02.52.52.52.52.52.5Fall00Bronx---------4911513.03.023.12.52.52.52.52.52.5Manhattan---------553593.24.032.97.22.52.52.52.52.5

Iron (ng/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---------6079107.9141.2885.8357.9116.079.238.811.011.0Manhattan---------407997.668.9408.6236.0127.976.449.211.011.0Spring99Bronx---------1009267.449.2302.0176.987.855.839.011.011.0Manhattan---------419177.040.9180.2156.099.767.545.223.411.0Summer99Bronx---------2593593.062.3261.4196.4133.870.847.211.011.0Manhattan---------388688.463.1423.9190.9119.374.048.223.611.0Fall99Bronx---------428893.368.4332.5258.9115.171.550.822.311.0Manhattan---------718972.554.0302.0191.189.856.339.611.011.0Winter00Bronx---------2598080.3195.41720.0172.482.237.711.011.011.0Manhattan---------2148565.055.3290.6176.183.258.923.111.011.0Spring00Bronx---------2678560.251.6253.6159.485.055.811.011.011.0Manhattan---------3238957.052.1230.9171.387.038.711.011.011.0Summer00Bronx---------5029243.645.2236.5130.667.511.011.011.011.0Manhattan---------47118349.456.5293.1161.481.811.011.011.011.0Fall00Bronx---------15115164.258.6272.1166.994.743.311.011.011.0Manhattan---------2035969.170.5356.4187.9119.641.111.011.011.0

Lead (ng/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---------730796.72.925.913.66.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------740796.72.923.713.66.06.06.06.06.0Spring99Bronx---------920926.00.06.06.06.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------871916.42.121.56.06.06.06.06.06.0Summer99Bronx---------3559356.00.06.06.06.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------838866.31.616.36.06.06.06.06.06.0Fall99Bronx---------792887.23.823.118.76.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------821897.14.126.819.86.06.06.06.06.0Winter00Bronx---------689809.719.2175.021.06.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------774856.93.021.014.56.06.06.06.06.0Spring00Bronx---------827856.31.515.06.06.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------873896.21.315.26.06.06.06.06.06.0Summer00Bronx---------852926.72.618.314.66.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------8011836.52.726.16.06.06.06.06.06.0Fall00Bronx---------5111516.00.06.06.06.06.06.06.06.0Manhattan---------573596.31.616.86.06.06.06.06.06.0Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

M anganese (ng/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---------730792.65.535.54.71.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------740791.71.08.14.31.51.51.51.51.5Spring99Bronx---------910921.60.56.31.51.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------901911.50.34.01.51.51.51.51.51.5Summer99Bronx---------3459351.60.43.81.51.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------838861.60.43.81.51.51.51.51.51.5Fall99Bronx---------802881.81.16.74.81.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------831891.81.27.64.31.51.51.51.51.5Winter00Bronx---------759801.70.65.33.41.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------764851.81.17.14.41.51.51.51.51.5Spring00Bronx---------837851.50.23.01.51.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------833891.70.64.53.41.51.51.51.51.5Summer00Bronx---------802921.81.08.13.71.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------5311832.72.519.56.13.41.51.51.51.5Fall00Bronx---------4811511.60.43.73.01.51.51.51.51.5Manhattan---------493592.01.26.44.81.51.51.51.51.5

N i ckel (ng/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---------607930.736.1190.685.334.022.611.62.02.0Manhattan---------107935.126.6119.983.551.530.59.96.02.0Spring99Bronx---------450925.56.837.620.45.24.02.02.02.0Manhattan---------2819110.320.0140.435.38.95.52.02.02.0Summer99Bronx---------2059354.74.422.014.86.22.02.02.02.0Manhattan---------478865.55.120.217.17.92.02.02.02.0Fall99Bronx---------2528810.710.567.426.614.97.72.02.02.0Manhattan---------2818911.812.863.235.318.95.52.02.02.0Winter00Bronx---------1498016.416.8103.940.021.412.46.22.02.0Manhattan---------748527.021.3118.356.134.125.612.02.02.0Spring00Bronx---------317858.68.449.522.412.06.72.02.02.0Manhattan---------2538911.79.242.026.217.310.22.02.02.0Summer00Bronx---------1429658.96.729.122.212.97.04.32.02.0Manhattan---------6326212.07.141.322.116.112.16.72.02.0Fall00Bronx---------2411516.110.978.911.46.44.32.02.02.0Manhattan---------133598.98.241.330.312.35.94.12.02.0

Zi n c (ng/m

3 )Winter99Bronx---------7607941.012.9118.838.538.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------7707939.88.392.938.538.538.538.538.538.5Spring99Bronx---------9209238.50.038.538.538.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------9119138.50.038.538.538.538.538.538.538.5Summer99Bronx---------35593538.50.038.538.538.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------8488640.412.8134.038.538.538.538.538.538.5Fall99Bronx---------8328841.914.3113.878.338.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------8618941.517.5169.138.538.538.538.538.538.5Winter00Bronx---------7798040.812.0118.038.538.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------8148542.019.0196.038.538.538.538.538.538.5Spring00Bronx---------8578538.50.038.538.538.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------8838939.15.994.038.538.538.538.538.538.5Summer00Bronx---------8629246.331.2209.7122.138.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------82118339.04.579.538.538.538.538.538.538.5Fall00Bronx---------50115139.67.793.538.538.538.538.538.538.5Manhattan---------5935938.50.038.538.538.538.538.538.538.5Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

T o tal M e tals (ng/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------079194.1194.71264.0480.9200.5152.1103.264.761.5Manhattan------------079183.691.5543.8397.7233.8166.5118.570.165.6Spring99Bronx------------092121.453.2389.6230.5141.6108.491.161.561.5Manhattan------------191136.251.7333.0234.2161.6120.6102.873.961.5Summer99Bronx------------5935146.364.6313.9255.9191.6121.397.761.561.5Manhattan------------886144.867.6474.4258.0171.7127.099.074.161.5Fall99Bronx------------288157.586.6504.5348.0173.1132.7104.372.861.5Manhattan------------189137.275.3544.3271.4156.1114.293.761.561.5Winter00Bronx------------980151.5234.52105.0260.4150.1109.071.861.561.5Manhattan------------485145.373.8390.7302.7167.5137.988.161.561.5Spring00Bronx------------785117.755.4337.6223.9143.7107.472.361.561.5Manhattan------------389118.257.7297.5235.7155.2101.574.661.561.5Summer00Bronx------------292107.353.1314.9198.7142.982.964.459.559.5Manhattan------------1183109.563.5363.2220.6143.276.064.759.559.5Fall00Bronx------------1151120.565.3333.2275.9171.894.365.961.561.5Manhattan------------359128.075.8457.4253.2172.899.571.561.561.5

SO 2 (D enuder) (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------790---------------------------Manhattan------------790---------------------------Spring99Bronx------------920---------------------------Manhattan------------920---------------------------Summer99Bronx------------603414.09.430.229.623.710.95.52.71.6Manhattan------------78717.910.145.538.322.215.110.54.83.1Fall99Bronx------------28827.416.594.156.532.923.615.78.81.7Manhattan------------28828.617.599.258.335.624.115.77.56.0Winter00Bronx------------58441.621.2132.778.554.035.125.916.76.7Manhattan------------48543.722.8156.877.155.739.528.314.65.7Spring00Bronx------------09216.59.150.730.822.014.69.96.34.1Manhattan------------09218.29.847.737.525.315.710.46.23.9Summer00Bronx------------722216.810.343.935.819.512.79.67.76.3Manhattan------------722217.87.334.429.123.015.912.87.87.6Fall00Bronx------------620---------------------------Manhattan------------620---------------------------

HCl (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------790---------------------------Manhattan------------790---------------------------Spring99Bronx------------920---------------------------Manhattan------------920---------------------------Summer99Bronx------------60340.90.72.52.41.20.60.40.10.1Manhattan------------7871.00.73.02.41.40.90.50.10.0Fall99Bronx------------2880.30.21.10.70.40.30.20.10.0Manhattan------------1890.30.21.20.70.30.20.10.00.0Winter00Bronx------------5840.40.31.40.90.50.30.20.10.0Manhattan------------4850.30.20.90.60.40.30.20.00.0Spring00Bronx------------0920.40.52.71.60.40.30.10.10.0Manhattan------------0920.40.52.01.60.40.30.10.10.0Summer00Bronx------------72221.00.31.61.61.20.90.70.60.5Manhattan------------72220.80.31.41.31.00.80.60.40.3Fall00Bronx------------620---------------------------Manhattan------------620---------------------------Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

HNO 2 (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------790---------------------------Manhattan------------790---------------------------Spring99Bronx------------920---------------------------Manhattan------------920---------------------------Summer99Bronx------------60341.91.65.35.02.81.40.50.10.1Manhattan------------8861.91.56.44.83.01.60.60.30.1Fall99Bronx------------2884.02.512.79.05.23.42.21.10.5Manhattan------------1894.42.210.48.35.74.12.71.61.2Winter00Bronx------------5843.72.612.58.65.12.91.60.90.6Manhattan------------4854.02.716.88.84.63.22.21.61.2Spring00Bronx------------0922.41.911.86.42.92.11.20.50.4Manhattan------------0922.92.011.87.33.72.71.60.70.5Summer00Bronx------------72221.41.25.02.82.20.90.50.30.2Manhattan------------72221.51.13.93.52.41.10.60.50.5Fall00Bronx------------620---------------------------Manhattan------------620---------------------------

HNO 3 (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------790---------------------------Manhattan------------790---------------------------Spring99Bronx------------920---------------------------Manhattan------------920---------------------------Summer99Bronx------------60342.52.06.46.43.71.80.70.30.1Manhattan------------9853.93.114.710.95.62.91.60.40.1Fall99Bronx------------2880.60.63.11.60.60.40.20.10.0Manhattan------------1890.60.52.51.80.80.50.30.10.1Winter00Bronx------------5840.50.31.81.00.60.50.30.20.1Manhattan------------4851.00.73.02.31.50.80.40.20.1Spring00Bronx------------0921.21.47.24.41.10.70.40.20.1Manhattan------------0921.21.46.94.71.20.80.40.20.1Summer00Bronx------------72223.11.15.04.93.93.22.31.41.3Manhattan------------72223.21.05.34.94.03.12.61.81.5Fall00Bronx------------620---------------------------Manhattan------------620---------------------------

NH 3 (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------790---------------------------Manhattan------------790---------------------------Spring99Bronx------------920---------------------------Manhattan------------920---------------------------Summer99Bronx------------74204.51.26.76.45.44.63.52.72.7Manhattan------------43514.30.96.05.55.04.33.73.01.6Fall99Bronx------------900---------------------------Manhattan------------900---------------------------Winter00Bronx------------11781.31.46.74.81.70.90.20.10.0Manhattan------------9802.81.88.37.03.72.31.20.80.6Spring00Bronx------------34582.81.76.96.33.82.31.40.80.5Manhattan------------37554.02.210.87.25.33.42.21.51.1Summer00Bronx------------940---------------------------Manhattan------------940---------------------------Fall00Bronx------------620---------------------------Manhattan------------620---------------------------Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

T o tal P o llen (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0790.92.011.05.70.40.20.00.00.0Manhattan------------0790.40.94.42.60.40.10.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------09233.449.5233.2192.544.415.84.31.00.6Manhattan------------09223.531.3131.2105.327.010.43.40.80.0Summer99Bronx------------53418.210.744.033.28.04.62.20.40.2Manhattan------------0944.34.926.016.75.12.51.60.60.0Fall99Bronx------------0900.71.57.83.50.60.20.00.00.0Manhattan------------0900.30.84.22.20.20.00.00.00.0Winter00Bronx------------6832.09.177.58.90.20.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0892.29.683.48.00.40.00.00.00.0Spring00Bronx------------092106.5358.22212.9930.228.910.63.90.70.0Manhattan------------09264.7222.81558.3375.227.78.84.00.80.0Summer00Bronx------------0946.211.365.925.85.82.20.90.00.0Manhattan------------0943.34.932.713.43.81.60.40.00.0Fall00Bronx------------1610.40.73.41.30.50.20.00.00.0Manhattan------------1610.20.42.00.90.20.00.00.00.0

P o llen - T r ees (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0790.92.011.25.90.40.20.00.00.0Manhattan------------0790.40.94.42.60.40.10.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------09232.648.4232.0165.742.715.84.21.00.6Manhattan------------09223.130.5131.2105.327.010.03.40.80.0Summer99Bronx------------4846127521000Manhattan------------0941212621000Fall99Bronx------------090001000000Manhattan------------090000000000Winter00Bronx------------6832978900000Manhattan------------08921083800000Spring00Bronx------------09210635822139302910410Manhattan------------092642231558373289410Summer00Bronx------------0941325200000Manhattan------------094019200000Fall00Bronx------------161001000000Manhattan------------161001000000

P o llen - R agw eed (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0790.00.00.20.00.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0790.00.00.20.20.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------0920.00.00.20.00.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0920.00.00.30.00.00.00.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------48462425910000Manhattan------------0941324710000Fall99Bronx------------090016100000Manhattan------------090013100000Winter00Bronx------------683000000000Manhattan------------089000000000Spring00Bronx------------092000000000Manhattan------------092000000000Summer00Bronx------------0942315930000Manhattan------------094128520000Fall00Bronx------------161001000000Manhattan------------161001000000Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

P o llen - G r asses (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0790.00.10.40.20.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0790.00.00.20.00.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------0920.73.126.92.90.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0920.41.512.43.20.00.00.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------48462312721000Manhattan------------094116411000Fall99Bronx------------090000000000Manhattan------------090000000000Winter00Bronx------------683000000000Manhattan------------089000000000Spring00Bronx------------0921212600000Manhattan------------092129300000Summer00Bronx------------094129510000Manhattan------------0941217310000Fall00Bronx------------161000000000Manhattan------------161000000000

T o tal M o ld (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0799.034.6293.242.66.50.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0795.713.769.447.63.50.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------092265.4521.33539.01246.5247.146.79.10.00.0Manhattan------------092231.7414.42200.21244.2253.934.78.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------53411335.81006.63652.33030.91914.61284.7499.787.629.2Manhattan------------0941424.61123.65357.63704.92109.81145.8493.3142.249.6Fall99Bronx------------090449.5828.36171.41520.8502.6219.436.40.00.0Manhattan------------090372.4529.62843.91299.6493.3132.719.53.30.0Winter00Bronx------------68310.720.6119.448.913.20.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0893.66.731.321.96.00.00.00.00.0Spring00Bronx------------092363.4604.32450.42027.1335.6102.323.40.00.0Manhattan------------092475.7831.84089.92228.0470.093.012.70.00.0Summer00Bronx------------0941041.2881.46553.42452.51476.6822.4504.498.740.8Manhattan------------094832.3730.25486.12052.11052.1652.2388.965.519.7Fall00Bronx------------161499.7550.42226.11655.7771.2335.649.116.49.8Manhattan------------161446.9515.92860.41329.4739.6309.059.016.49.7

B a sidospores (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0790.94.327.56.60.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0791.16.354.33.60.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------09237.364.9368.1201.445.49.70.00.00.0Manhattan------------09231.763.8447.7143.234.76.00.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------4846346504248814444151493100Manhattan------------09437235014851214522259113207Fall99Bronx------------0902495474694959291100700Manhattan------------090195304160585325972300Winter00Bronx------------68314241100000Manhattan------------0891221300000Spring00Bronx------------09210624916655818621400Manhattan------------0922064352775117018624300Summer00Bronx------------09455444025451367757446249410Manhattan------------09445335523161068638383195237Fall00Bronx------------16122027410968223101241600Manhattan------------1611882248196692271171430Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

A scospores (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0794.731.5280.19.90.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0791.23.925.19.10.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------09249.6116.0891.4277.839.112.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------09253.0117.4776.7277.239.69.10.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------48468293380267115491300Manhattan------------094618046719565391930Fall99Bronx------------0902429149843116300Manhattan------------090172920565196000Winter00Bronx------------6832427700000Manhattan------------0891214400000Spring00Bronx------------09239644781235116000Manhattan------------0923975431231318000Summer00Bronx------------094111151925413135662240Manhattan------------09494115590354115571330Fall00Bronx------------16142643001545820300Manhattan------------16139482011425918700

M i tospores (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0793.49.043.826.13.30.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0793.19.852.535.50.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------092176.8389.32407.21006.9146.515.40.00.00.0Manhattan------------092143.2302.51791.3803.8105.512.10.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------48467527862676235912094836000Manhattan------------094980963483728581392713215450Fall99Bronx------------090173360247467717949700Manhattan------------090155301213352117941700Winter00Bronx------------6836151093570000Manhattan------------08925261500000Spring00Bronx------------0922164682136165610833700Manhattan------------0922285032431163619721300Summer00Bronx------------094365558467510934532049170Manhattan------------094276383261110943131425973Fall00Bronx------------1612293271543881340662230Manhattan------------1612123702477681262871600

M i tospores - D a rk C o lor (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0792.16.242.69.80.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0793.09.452.535.50.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------092173.4379.92320.41006.9146.515.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------092142.5302.81791.3803.8105.510.90.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------48467497842666235611774835700Manhattan------------094968953483728581360713215350Fall99Bronx------------090168360247467717944300Manhattan------------090142279193144317441700Winter00Bronx------------683513873530000Manhattan------------08925261500000Spring00Bronx------------092211466213615509827300Manhattan------------0922205012431163615317300Summer00Bronx------------094353554466410894461998070Manhattan------------094270382261110943131385630Fall00Bronx------------1612273281543881340621630Manhattan------------1612083622391681242851600Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

M i tospores - N on-D a rk C o lor (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0791.36.943.86.30.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0790.10.86.50.00.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------0923.515.086.813.90.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0920.73.221.19.10.00.00.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------4846310551630000Manhattan------------09412311788130000Fall99Bronx------------0905161022130000Manhattan------------090135035412000000Winter00Bronx------------6831525300000Manhattan------------089003000000Spring00Bronx------------0925151063000000Manhattan------------0929271564700000Summer00Bronx------------094124535110800000Manhattan------------0946171293630000Fall00Bronx------------16127481100000Manhattan------------1614181112000000

S m all (< 10um ) S pores (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0798.534.4293.242.66.30.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0795.313.266.444.83.50.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------092261.3517.23519.01236.1236.145.78.00.00.0Manhattan------------092225.3404.22180.71173.5247.534.78.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------4846110896935852781175687721500Manhattan------------09413481041472234172026110946512933Fall99Bronx------------090440821614815104932133300Manhattan------------090361518277112804741331900Winter00Bronx------------68391710142110000Manhattan------------08936282260000Spring00Bronx------------09234958423911901313932000Manhattan------------09246079838632209465881300Summer00Bronx------------09410108616374240114588004979533Manhattan------------0948057095378193110426453705610Fall00Bronx------------1614845342141162375333249167Manhattan------------16143350228171304733299581610

Large (> 10um ) S pores (#/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------0790.51.79.86.50.00.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0790.10.63.50.00.00.00.00.00.0Spring99Bronx------------0922.14.320.813.43.30.00.00.00.0Manhattan------------0922.66.938.219.33.00.00.00.00.0Summer99Bronx------------484668873732629440300Manhattan------------094619963518365251000Fall99Bronx------------09059532370000Manhattan------------09059462470000Winter00Bronx------------683017000000Manhattan------------089003000000Spring00Bronx------------0928251584600000Manhattan------------0928342272130000Summer00Bronx------------09415188052267400Manhattan------------09413199763137000Fall00Bronx------------161610422683000Manhattan------------16159562070000Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

T o tal P a rticles (#)Winter99Bronx------------18960---------------------------Manhattan------------18960---------------------------Spring99Bronx------------22080---------------------------Manhattan------------22080---------------------------Summer99Bronx------------2247925115925111473293187329318729785652426573198693719589891958989Manhattan------------2252478606541310828917828917815119792214757010730912730912Fall99Bronx------------021601278806837520366453031388621655154913698693673455757216269Manhattan------------1215912521935147143486562230316315102931027820898458743602453650Winter00Bronx------------279185712858635320233468775240932615428671080677917785746155359705Manhattan------------4461690152331342030529323492276606182674214382531247570887923470780Spring00Bronx------------3611847194325284471035358313129558270370120498931032051698632394626Manhattan------------3741834144125036083933324802134929152462814064421283332954088375369Summer00Bronx------------12859711524672738377337138928382222044459142587194491846118992949Manhattan------------1441815144881450848734462192768514156648213548071147058871408339Fall00Bronx------------1791309193448484888435457313183346271819619630121076472657683322539Manhattan------------3111177180612079369733781553103462265698814694571171154827636541951

PM 2.5 (F R M ) (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------562315.277.1926.3825.8322.0015.009.175.830.00Manhattan------------146517.708.5741.4632.0021.0416.5012.542.290.92Spring99Bronx------------58713.658.0639.1830.7116.0411.008.336.084.27Manhattan------------98313.088.6239.0830.9216.8311.507.790.38-0.08Summer99Bronx------------633116.6510.0839.0036.6823.8816.278.364.112.02Manhattan------------49015.5911.1750.8536.2320.9513.336.750.640.17Fall99Bronx------------375312.016.7933.8026.4014.609.797.304.813.13Manhattan------------365415.948.8938.4034.1021.6513.738.826.200.42Winter00Bronx------------246517.1711.1447.3040.5021.9013.208.106.004.10Manhattan------------276219.1311.2348.2041.2025.1015.3010.307.106.90Spring00Bronx------------88413.828.6040.6031.5017.9011.007.855.303.50Manhattan------------48815.348.5344.1033.5017.8012.759.206.305.10Summer00Bronx------------58915.037.9237.3030.4020.5012.909.105.403.60Manhattan------------78716.907.9337.7031.3021.4015.2010.706.605.70Fall00Bronx------------55713.998.5153.0029.0017.5011.807.804.703.80Manhattan------------06216.1811.3163.8031.3019.4013.658.805.904.40

PM 10 (F R M ) (ug/m

3 )Winter99Bronx------------67124191918111088Manhattan------------10312113131312121212Spring99Bronx------------21322835352721191010Manhattan------------11422736362722171111Summer99Bronx------------13338846464638313131Manhattan------------1152714464640251577Fall99Bronx------------411166272722151288Manhattan------------015176303021181099Winter00Bronx------------312201150502317131111Manhattan------------01519943432216141313Spring00Bronx------------312241145453321141313Manhattan------------0152211494928171377Summer00Bronx------------01621737372318171313Manhattan------------01622739392523171313Fall00Bronx------------462310373729241599Manhattan------------192817616134301599Appendix 2 - Summary of Data (continued)Descriptive StatisticsSeasonSiteSR'sRJ'sPL'sLT'sMissingNMeanStd. Dev.Max95th75thMedian25th5thMin

T e m perature (deg F )Winter99Bronx52------0188936.09.568.451.142.236.729.220.59.6Manhattan03------0189336.99.568.351.743.437.630.021.210.3Spring99Bronx26------110209059.211.494.879.866.658.450.941.832.9Manhattan114------106208759.811.295.480.267.058.851.542.834.7Summer99Bronx317------140980975.78.6100.490.881.175.170.064.251.2Manhattan1313------443178776.78.0100.190.481.776.571.963.652.0Fall99Bronx131------0214652.310.577.769.260.252.744.735.623.0Manhattan3452------2207253.410.176.969.361.353.946.136.523.8Winter00Bronx61------0212935.811.770.855.043.935.728.015.92.8Manhattan82------170195637.811.469.957.145.737.730.218.74.3Spring00Bronx23------0220358.112.493.682.564.756.649.540.229.6Manhattan20------0220658.812.192.983.165.457.650.341.230.5Summer00Bronx530------65213872.66.690.383.977.072.468.162.752.0Manhattan8219------1215472.66.090.683.076.572.568.563.053.8Fall00Bronx1461------10133153.89.778.669.060.354.447.236.78.0Manhattan42------7147554.89.780.469.661.555.747.937.828.2

R e lative H u m i dity (% )Winter99Bronx53------0188866231081048661473221Manhattan23------0189160231071027855422918Spring99Bronx905------110200361251081048158412513Manhattan115------10620865524106987352362212Summer99Bronx330------140981468211071028569513523Manhattan2010------44317836220104957863463021Fall99Bronx141------0214571211101068969543925Manhattan74------2214765201061008163493422Winter00Bronx61------0212967221141088262513624Manhattan51------170196061211091017657463219Spring00Bronx26------022007325115110977353331Manhattan10------0220766221061008665483012Summer00Bronx750------65211678211171119778624331Manhattan43------1224870201061008769553828Fall00Bronx10223------10135375201171108974604433Manhattan32------714766518107967763513823A ppendix 3 – D e t a iled Stat ist i ca l R e sul t s, E n t i re St udy Period

16 7Appendix 3 - Statistical Analyses - Entire Study PeriodStatistics and Analyses - Daily AveragesaAnalytePearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects (%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-valuepH0.6853---6801.7%---5.046279.4%---5.1562210.1%-0.07-1.4%1-4.32<0.0001Sulfate0.96470.246742.6%0.0%4.061710.8%0.3%3.660712.3%0.13.4%03.900.0001Carb2500.6155---6506.1%---3.0959014.7%---3.1755619.7%-0.15-4.9%44-0.790.4293Soot0.7671---59214.5%---1.3258215.9%---1.1949828.0%0.086.5%181.490.1380Ozone0.9235---6309.0%---0.01251825.1%---0.01648230.3%-0.004-33.3%9-12.01<0.0001NOX0.8652---6259.7%---0.06642538.6%---0.05336747.0%0.01218.8%86.51<0.0001NO0.8794---6259.7%---0.03142538.6%---0.02236747.0%0.00827.6%37.72<0.0001NO20.7704---6259.7%---0.03642538.6%---0.03136747.0%0.00513.9%76.11<0.0001SO20.8967---6486.4%---0.01260812.1%---0.01156618.2%0.00215.4%272.940.0034PM2.5 (TEOM)0.9659---6318.8%---16.256718.1%---15.351725.3%0.84.8%08.43<0.0001PM10 (TEOM)0.9185---60912.0%---23.149728.2%---22.344435.8%0.94.1%141.870.0616Acetaldehyde*0.80861.06742.6%1.2%2.757716.6%0.4%2.556817.9%0.01.3%210.230.8198Acetone*0.23421.06742.6%2.2%6.957716.6%0.1%6.856817.9%0.0-0.1%2-0.030.9786Acrolein*---1.06742.6%96.2%0.657716.6%83.2%0.556817.9%0.00.0%---------Benzaldehyde*0.42321.06742.6%93.9%0.557716.6%76.2%0.556817.9%0.0-1.8%---------Butyraldehyde*-0.02851.06742.6%68.9%0.857716.6%66.0%0.756817.9%0.114.9%---------Crotonaldehyde*0.58751.06742.6%69.5%0.857716.6%63.4%0.756817.9%0.02.0%---------Formaldehyde*0.79821.06742.6%0.3%4.457716.6%0.1%4.256817.9%-0.1-2.8%27-0.470.6391Hexaldehyde*0.38131.06742.6%81.1%0.857716.6%70.4%0.656817.9%-0.1-12.9%---------Isovaleraldehyde*0.06141.06742.6%90.5%0.657716.6%78.5%0.556817.9%0.0-1.2%---------m-Tolualdehyde*---1.06742.6%97.4%0.557716.6%83.4%0.556817.9%0.00.0%---------o-Tolualdehyde*-0.00381.06742.6%96.8%0.557716.6%82.7%0.556817.9%0.0-0.8%---------p-Tolualdehyde*0.69071.06742.6%87.1%0.557716.6%71.1%0.656817.9%0.0-1.6%---------Propionaldehyde*0.47191.06742.6%67.1%0.957716.6%55.3%0.856817.9%-0.1-9.7%---------Valeraldehyde*0.02711.06742.6%95.4%0.557716.6%78.9%0.556817.9%0.0-0.6%---------2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde*---1.06742.6%97.3%0.557716.6%83.4%0.556817.9%0.00.0%---------Total Aldehydes*0.5322---6732.7%---16.258816.6%---16.656718.1%-0.1-0.7%18-0.110.9129Chromium-0.006856614.5%93.9%360213.0%85.0%357516.9%0-13.8%---------Iron0.3656226614.5%19.9%7260213.0%19.9%7557516.9%-4-6.1%1-0.960.3369Lead0.0541126614.5%90.6%760213.0%81.6%757516.9%0-5.8%---------Manganese0.116636614.5%85.4%260213.0%81.5%257516.9%02.7%---------Nickel0.383546407.5%22.4%1557516.9%25.9%1254820.8%424.3%04.43<0.0001Zinc0.1283776614.5%93.6%4060213.0%84.4%4157516.9%-2-3.9%---------Total Metals0.3283---61511.1%---9453223.1%---10148929.3%-4-4.6%1-0.680.4976SO20.8973---37446.0%---26.432053.8%---25.831055.2%1.97.0%03.930.0001HCl0.8364---37545.8%---0.5132053.8%---0.4831155.1%-0.05-10.8%3-2.210.0278HONO0.8350---37446.0%---3.2132053.8%---3.0731155.1%0.3810.9%04.85<0.0001HNO30.9293---37346.1%---1.7532053.8%---1.1131055.2%0.1915.0%142.520.0124NH30.9150---18673.1%---3.53615677.5%---2.27413580.5%1.33139.8%115.98<0.0001Total Pollen0.9792---6910.1%---13.26328.7%---22.36328.7%-8.2-58.1%5-1.420.1572Tree Pollen0.9795---6910.1%---12.26377.9%---20.56377.9%-7.4-56.4%5-1.290.1981Ragweed0.8619---6910.1%---0.46377.9%---0.46377.9%-0.1-48.8%2-2.450.0147Grasses0.7479---6910.1%---0.46377.9%---0.56377.9%-0.1-31.3%1-2.150.0322Total Mold0.8381---6910.1%---490.36328.7%---447.86328.7%-35.0-8.5%4-1.390.1660Basidospores0.7090---6910.1%---186.06377.9%---184.06377.9%-16.7-10.0%3-1.100.2708Ascospores0.6789---6910.1%---39.16377.9%---43.26377.9%-4.1-10.4%0-1.460.1454Mitospores0.8709---6910.1%---259.96377.9%---212.56377.9%-12.5-6.2%3-1.020.3075Mitospores (Dark)0.8753---6910.1%---254.16377.9%---208.16377.9%-13.5-7.0%3-1.140.2547Mitospores (Non-Dark)0.0538---6910.1%---5.86377.9%---4.46377.9%1.119.4%00.840.4036Small Spores (<10 um)0.8304---6910.1%---470.46377.9%---427.86377.9%-31.4-7.9%3-1.310.1904Large Spores (>10 um)0.7879---6910.1%---12.56377.9%---9.96377.9%-1.7-20.0%0-2.140.0330Particle Count0.2231---30855.5%---146315232952.5%---156078028858.4%-100940-7.0%16-1.010.3155PM2.5 (FRM)0.8979---57117.5%---16.648929.3%---14.541340.3%1.59.7%38.83<0.0001PM10 (FRM)0.9559---10211.3%---22.08030.4%---20.97435.7%0.83.8%62.170.0329Average Temperature0.9989---6496.2%---56.561011.8%---53.959314.3%0.71.3%712.01<0.0001Average Relative Humidity0.9773---6584.9%---6360312.9%---7059613.9%-7-10.8%7-19.49<0.0001aDifference=Manhattan - BronxdFor analytes collected on an hourly basis, daily averages were calculated for days with at least 75% valid databNon-detects were given values of 1/2 the detection limit for statistical calculations* Data for April 20-30, 2000 at the Bronxsite has been excluded from these analysescMean Difference (%) =Mean Difference / Manhattan (using only days with daily averages available for both sites)Appe ndix 4 – De tailed Statistical Resul t s by Season

16 9Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By SeasonSeasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

Ana ly t e

( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

p HWinter990.0927---790.0%---5.47790.0%---5.51790.0%-0.04-0.7%0-0.570.5695Spring990.7454---920.0%---5.09920.0%---5.18920.0%-0.09-1.8%0-2.460.0160Summer990.9502---913.2%---4.623661.7%---4.773364.9%-0.07-1.5%1-1.460.1529Fall990.7365---900.0%---5.10900.0%---5.23900.0%-0.12-2.4%0-3.260.0016Winter000.5726---890.0%---5.25890.0%---5.31890.0%-0.06-1.1%0-1.800.0759Spring000.7658---920.0%---4.98920.0%---5.07920.0%-0.09-1.8%0-2.910.0046Summer000.8376---877.4%---4.79877.4%---4.84877.4%-0.05-1.0%0-1.950.0548Fall000.6964---603.2%---5.10620.0%---5.12603.2%-0.02-0.4%0-0.540.5904

Su l fate

( ug/m

3 )Winter990.79680.24790.0%0.0%3.01790.0%0.0%2.93790.0%0.082.7%00.700.4847Spring990.97690.24920.0%0.0%3.35911.1%0.0%3.22911.1%0.154.4%02.260.0263Summer990.99540.24895.3%0.0%6.323562.8%2.9%5.163167.0%0.265.1%12.620.0138Fall990.88130.24882.2%0.0%3.16891.1%1.1%3.05873.3%0.113.3%00.750.4528Winter000.95470.24881.1%0.0%3.14827.9%0.0%2.92819.0%0.144.5%02.230.0286Spring000.98570.24911.1%0.0%4.10920.0%0.0%4.02911.1%0.194.7%12.920.0045Summer000.98230.24877.4%0.0%5.05877.4%0.0%4.97877.4%0.091.7%01.170.2453Fall000.99030.24603.2%0.0%3.37620.0%0.0%3.30603.2%0.030.8%00.510.6128

Ca rbon 2 5 0 ( ug/m

3 )Winter990.9275---6517.7%---2.7466715.2%---2.485925.3%0.27710.0%16.32<0.0001Spring990.7737---7914.1%---2.743911.1%---2.9777815.2%-0.308-11.3%4-1.840.0701Summer990.7342---931.1%---3.4613266.0%---3.7513167.0%-0.309-9.1%2-1.680.1026Fall990.7887---900.0%---2.9527417.8%---3.6287417.8%-0.639-21.4%1-7.68<0.0001Winter000.9133---863.4%---2.618881.1%---3.207854.5%-0.570-21.7%1-9.21<0.0001Spring000.7888---848.7%---3.323839.8%---3.6987617.4%-0.508-15.8%1-5.40<0.0001Summer000.7466---931.1%---3.337940.0%---3.183931.1%0.1414.2%60.950.3460Fall000.6602---603.2%---3.487611.6%---2.524603.2%0.94227.0%36.71<0.0001

S oot Ca rbon ( ug/m

3 )Winter990.8184---5036.7%---1.6676517.7%---1.5874444.3%-0.031-1.8%1-0.320.7540Spring990.7222---5243.5%---1.482911.1%---1.1405144.6%0.24917.0%21.970.0549Summer990.8417---8014.9%---1.4033068.1%---1.0212177.7%0.19915.3%03.390.0029Fall990.8494---900.0%---1.4217318.9%---1.3347318.9%0.1379.3%02.760.0074Winter000.8669---854.5%---1.351872.2%---1.392845.6%-0.041-3.1%0-0.970.3355Spring000.6654---848.7%---1.2348112.0%---0.9307419.6%0.24821.2%22.920.0046Summer000.3886---931.1%---0.976940.0%---1.029931.1%-0.059-6.0%4-0.550.5843Fall000.8370---586.5%---1.190611.6%---1.070586.5%0.12010.1%11.890.0640

O 3

( ppm )Winter990.9462---4148.1%---0.0062667.1%---0.017988.6%-0.008-79.2%0-12.19<0.0001Spring990.8300---884.3%---0.016884.3%---0.021848.7%-0.005-32.2%1-6.72<0.0001Summer990.8632---931.1%---0.0211188.3%---0.0351188.3%-0.011-44.2%0-6.090.0001Fall990.9271---864.4%---0.0055637.8%---0.0075637.8%-0.002-56.2%0-8.92<0.0001Winter000.9282---881.1%---0.006890.0%---0.010881.1%-0.004-76.7%0-13.33<0.0001Spring000.9130---857.6%---0.016920.0%---0.020857.6%-0.005-30.8%1-7.44<0.0001Summer000.8536---895.3%---0.016940.0%---0.021895.3%-0.004-26.2%1-7.53<0.0001Fall000.9095---603.2%---0.006620.0%---0.009603.2%-0.003-42.4%0-9.07<0.0001

NO X ( ppm )Winter99------763.8%---0.0850100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring990.3756---6034.8%---0.0617914.1%---0.0444847.8%0.02237.7%32.740.0086Summer990.7734---931.1%---0.0492375.5%---0.0382375.5%0.00817.5%03.740.0011Fall990.8597---873.3%---0.0783857.8%---0.0613857.8%0.01317.5%04.490.0001Winter000.9279---881.1%---0.0846922.5%---0.0736823.6%0.01113.0%13.910.0002Spring000.8730---7419.6%---0.057911.1%---0.0517320.7%0.00813.8%04.99<0.0001Summer000.7474---886.4%---0.0476333.0%---0.0375838.3%0.00920.2%16.36<0.0001Fall000.9009---594.8%---0.074620.0%---0.062594.8%0.01215.9%13.950.0002Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

N O

( ppm )Winter99------763.8%---0.0470100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring990.4929---6034.8%---0.0227914.1%---0.0154847.8%0.01048.4%22.810.0071Summer990.8271---931.1%---0.0142375.5%---0.0072375.5%0.00437.3%03.970.0007Fall990.8262---873.3%---0.0453857.8%---0.0303857.8%0.01126.6%04.220.0002Winter000.9049---881.1%---0.0476922.5%---0.0376823.6%0.00919.3%13.720.0004Spring000.8729---7419.6%---0.021911.1%---0.0187320.7%0.00421.3%04.160.0001Summer000.7089---886.4%---0.0166333.0%---0.0085838.3%0.00642.1%09.14<0.0001Fall000.8717---594.8%---0.040620.0%---0.033594.8%0.00921.1%13.200.0022

NO 2 ( ppm )Winter99------763.8%---0.0380100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring990.3619---6034.8%---0.0397914.1%---0.0304847.8%0.01332.7%42.670.0104Summer990.7272---931.1%---0.0362375.5%---0.0312375.5%0.00514.0%03.870.0008Fall990.9442---873.3%---0.0343857.8%---0.0313857.8%0.0039.2%05.78<0.0001Winter000.9535---881.1%---0.0386922.5%---0.0366823.6%0.0049.5%07.26<0.0001Spring000.8365---7419.6%---0.037911.1%---0.0337320.7%0.00513.2%15.32<0.0001Summer000.8091---886.4%---0.0336333.0%---0.0285838.3%0.00514.1%15.68<0.0001Fall000.9623---594.8%---0.034620.0%---0.030594.8%0.00412.8%010.67<0.0001

SO 2 ( ppm )Winter990.7954---772.5%---0.020790.0%---0.015772.5%0.00627.4%011.72<0.0001Spring990.8495---911.1%---0.010920.0%---0.008911.1%0.00223.7%18.06<0.0001Summer990.5679---931.1%---0.0082375.5%---0.0062375.5%0.00220.9%03.090.0054Fall990.9365---873.3%---0.0137714.4%---0.0137516.7%0.0002.1%00.980.3297Winter000.9182---881.1%---0.020890.0%---0.018881.1%0.0028.4%04.41<0.0001Spring000.8168---7815.2%---0.008920.0%---0.0077815.2%0.00110.8%12.600.0113Summer000.7620---7421.3%---0.006940.0%---0.0067421.3%0.0001.1%00.270.7846Fall000.8508---603.2%---0.012620.0%---0.013603.2%0.000-3.8%0-1.040.3012

PM 2. 5 (T EOM ) ( ug/m

3 )Winter990.9365---781.3%---15.27790.0%---15.00781.3%0.332.2%01.180.2414Spring990.9756---893.3%---14.83920.0%---14.03893.3%0.926.2%14.57<0.0001Summer990.9899---931.1%---20.402375.5%---21.222375.5%0.713.2%01.970.0618Fall990.9627---7121.1%---15.535736.7%---15.014846.7%1.046.6%03.260.0021Winter000.9610---890.0%---14.73881.1%---14.34881.1%0.493.3%02.230.0284Spring000.9705---7617.4%---15.15884.3%---15.607221.7%0.855.5%03.370.0012Summer000.9750---7817.0%---17.50877.4%---16.587124.5%1.206.8%04.93<0.0001Fall000.9768---578.1%---15.215314.5%---14.384822.6%0.664.3%02.380.0216

PM 10 (T EOM ) ( ug/m

3 )Winter990.9061---772.5%---19.543851.9%---19.833851.9%0.191.0%00.340.7334Spring990.9538---920.0%---21.66920.0%---22.37920.0%-0.71-3.3%1-1.870.0647Summer990.8854---931.1%---26.151584.0%---28.141584.0%-6.25-28.6%1-2.950.0105Fall990.9771---3758.9%---21.825242.2%---19.342176.7%3.4215.2%06.41<0.0001Winter000.9638---890.0%---22.387911.2%---20.647911.2%1.988.8%06.00<0.0001Spring000.9826---7221.7%---23.916529.3%---25.245045.7%1.606.2%04.52<0.0001Summer000.8329---886.4%---25.36940.0%---23.47886.4%2.389.4%13.010.0034Fall000.9740---611.6%---22.68620.0%---21.83611.6%0.823.6%02.500.0151

Ac e t a lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter990.44651.0790.0%0.0%2.1781.3%1.3%2.2781.3%-0.1-3.0%2-0.280.7815Spring990.79691.0920.0%0.0%2.7848.7%0.0%2.2848.7%0.518.2%52.770.0070Summer990.83111.0868.5%7.0%3.82969.1%0.0%2.92276.6%-0.1-3.9%0-0.770.4501Fall990.93371.0891.1%0.0%2.77714.4%0.0%2.57615.6%0.15.2%02.640.0102Winter000.94531.0890.0%0.0%2.6890.0%1.1%2.3890.0%0.310.7%05.63<0.0001Spring00*0.88921.0920.0%0.0%2.67320.7%0.0%3.77320.7%-1.0-35.9%8-3.410.0011Summer000.80981.0931.1%2.2%2.4922.1%0.0%2.3922.1%0.13.3%11.070.2870Fall000.97341.05412.9%0.0%2.45511.3%1.8%2.15412.9%0.310.5%05.49<0.0001Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

Ac e t one

( ug/m

3 )Winter990.00581.0790.0%0.0%7.0781.3%0.0%9.6781.3%-2.6-38.1%2-1.600.1147Spring990.07001.0920.0%0.0%8.8848.7%0.0%8.0848.7%1.011.3%00.750.4529Summer990.64691.0868.5%15.1%7.62969.1%0.0%7.02276.6%-2.1-43.8%0-3.100.0054Fall990.77691.0891.1%0.0%6.87714.4%0.0%5.67615.6%1.217.4%05.45<0.0001Winter000.69351.0890.0%0.0%5.4890.0%1.1%4.5890.0%0.916.7%04.33<0.0001Spring00*0.84171.0920.0%0.0%6.67320.7%0.0%7.97320.7%-1.1-16.4%1-3.820.0003Summer000.41521.0931.1%2.2%6.1922.1%0.0%5.9922.1%0.22.8%00.450.6532Fall000.91981.05412.9%0.0%7.05511.3%0.0%6.05412.9%1.014.6%05.38<0.0001

Ac role in

( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring99---1.0920.0%100.0%0.5848.7%100.0%0.5848.7%0.00.0%---------Summer99---1.0868.5%90.7%1.52969.1%100.0%0.52276.6%0.00.0%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%100.0%0.57714.4%100.0%0.57615.6%0.00.0%---------Winter00---1.0890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%98.9%0.5890.0%0.0-0.2%---------Spring00*---1.0920.0%94.6%0.57320.7%100.0%0.57320.7%0.00.0%---------Summer00---1.0931.1%100.0%0.5922.1%100.0%0.5922.1%0.00.0%---------Fall00---1.05412.9%100.0%0.55511.3%100.0%0.55412.9%0.00.0%---------

Be nza lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring99---1.0920.0%100.0%0.5848.7%100.0%0.5848.7%0.00.0%---------Summer99---1.0868.5%86.0%0.72969.1%100.0%0.52276.6%0.00.0%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%95.5%0.57714.4%97.4%0.57615.6%0.00.5%---------Winter00---1.0890.0%98.9%0.5890.0%96.6%0.5890.0%0.0-0.5%---------Spring00*0.34351.0920.0%94.6%0.57320.7%42.5%0.67320.7%-0.1-12.3%---------Summer00---1.0931.1%98.9%0.5922.1%98.9%0.5922.1%0.00.0%---------Fall000.70041.05412.9%98.1%0.55511.3%96.4%0.55412.9%0.0-1.8%---------

But y ra lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%94.9%0.8781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.336.0%---------Spring99-0.33741.0920.0%20.7%1.8848.7%59.5%0.8848.7%1.055.2%---------Summer990.45011.0868.5%61.6%1.02969.1%69.0%0.72276.6%0.221.2%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%96.6%0.57714.4%100.0%0.57615.6%0.00.3%---------Winter00-0.02761.0890.0%61.8%0.6890.0%96.6%0.5890.0%0.121.4%---------Spring00*0.35111.0920.0%88.0%0.57320.7%30.1%1.37320.7%-0.8-160.7%---------Summer000.06491.0931.1%61.3%0.6922.1%76.1%0.5922.1%0.111.0%---------Fall000.56641.05412.9%94.4%0.55511.3%98.2%0.55412.9%0.03.5%---------

Crot ona lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring990.48841.0920.0%80.4%0.8848.7%72.6%1.0848.7%-0.2-18.0%---------Summer990.39241.0868.5%65.1%1.42969.1%72.4%0.92276.6%0.115.9%---------Fall990.47081.0891.1%28.1%1.07714.4%53.2%0.97615.6%0.217.6%---------Winter000.90721.0890.0%11.2%0.9890.0%22.5%0.8890.0%0.05.5%---------Spring00*0.94731.0920.0%97.8%0.57320.7%97.3%0.57320.7%0.00.2%---------Summer00---1.0931.1%100.0%0.5922.1%100.0%0.5922.1%0.00.0%---------Fall00---1.05412.9%100.0%0.55511.3%100.0%0.55412.9%0.00.0%---------

Form a lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter990.55961.0790.0%0.0%3.3781.3%0.0%3.0781.3%0.38.7%11.490.1415Spring990.83361.0920.0%0.0%4.5848.7%0.0%3.9848.7%0.511.9%52.010.0477Summer990.76411.0868.5%1.2%7.52969.1%0.0%6.42276.6%-0.1-2.0%0-0.300.7641Fall990.93421.0891.1%0.0%4.07714.4%0.0%3.97615.6%0.12.0%20.790.4321Winter000.94251.0890.0%0.0%3.2890.0%0.0%3.0890.0%0.25.2%12.190.0314Spring00*0.77401.0920.0%1.1%4.17320.7%1.4%6.37320.7%-1.9-44.0%3-5.29<0.0001Summer000.80011.0931.1%0.0%4.6922.1%0.0%4.8922.1%-0.2-4.9%1-1.680.0961Fall000.95891.05412.9%0.0%3.55511.3%0.0%3.35412.9%0.27.0%03.450.0011Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

H exal d eh yd e ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring990.19701.0920.0%75.0%0.5848.7%85.7%0.6848.7%0.0-1.3%---------Summer99---1.0868.5%81.4%2.32969.1%96.6%0.52276.6%0.00.0%---------Fall99-0.05401.0891.1%89.9%0.57714.4%93.5%0.57615.6%0.02.0%---------Winter000.66201.0890.0%94.4%0.5890.0%97.8%0.5890.0%0.00.9%---------Spring00*0.58421.0920.0%75.0%0.67320.7%26.0%1.27320.7%-0.6-106.8%---------Summer000.67391.0931.1%63.4%0.6922.1%84.8%0.5922.1%0.110.6%---------Fall000.70041.05412.9%94.4%0.55511.3%96.4%0.55412.9%0.0-1.8%---------

I so val er al d h yd e ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring99---1.0920.0%100.0%0.5848.7%100.0%0.5848.7%0.00.0%---------Summer99-0.09071.0868.5%86.0%0.82969.1%86.2%0.72276.6%-0.2-44.9%---------Fall99-0.01331.0891.1%98.9%0.57714.4%98.7%0.57615.6%0.0-1.0%---------Winter000.05781.0890.0%93.3%0.5890.0%96.6%0.5890.0%0.01.5%---------Spring00*0.40541.0920.0%87.0%0.57320.7%84.9%0.57320.7%0.04.0%---------Summer00-0.03851.0931.1%81.7%0.5922.1%85.9%0.5922.1%0.02.5%---------Fall00---1.05412.9%100.0%0.55511.3%96.4%0.55412.9%0.0-3.7%---------

m

- Tolua lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring99---1.0920.0%100.0%0.5848.7%100.0%0.5848.7%0.00.0%---------Summer99---1.0868.5%100.0%0.52969.1%100.0%0.52276.6%0.00.0%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%100.0%0.57714.4%100.0%0.57615.6%0.00.0%---------Winter00---1.0890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%0.00.0%---------Spring00*---1.0920.0%100.0%0.57320.7%100.0%0.57320.7%0.00.0%---------Summer00---1.0931.1%100.0%0.5922.1%100.0%0.5922.1%0.00.0%---------Fall00---1.05412.9%100.0%0.55511.3%100.0%0.55412.9%0.00.0%---------

o- Tolua lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring99---1.0920.0%100.0%0.5848.7%100.0%0.5848.7%0.00.0%---------Summer99-0.08411.0868.5%97.7%0.52969.1%86.2%0.72276.6%-0.1-20.0%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%98.9%0.57714.4%100.0%0.57615.6%0.01.0%---------Winter00---1.0890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%0.00.0%---------Spring00*---1.0920.0%100.0%0.57320.7%98.6%0.57320.7%0.00.0%---------Summer00---1.0931.1%98.9%0.5922.1%100.0%0.5922.1%0.00.2%---------Fall00---1.05412.9%100.0%0.55511.3%100.0%0.55412.9%0.00.0%---------

p- Tolua lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring99---1.0920.0%100.0%0.5848.7%100.0%0.5848.7%0.00.0%---------Summer99---1.0868.5%95.3%0.52969.1%100.0%0.52276.6%0.19.8%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%100.0%0.57714.4%97.4%0.57615.6%0.0-1.8%---------Winter000.52771.0890.0%88.8%0.5890.0%88.8%0.5890.0%0.01.7%---------Spring00*0.74081.0920.0%77.2%0.77320.7%46.6%0.77320.7%0.0-5.2%---------Summer000.45771.0931.1%68.8%0.6922.1%72.8%0.6922.1%0.0-2.7%---------Fall000.81071.05412.9%87.0%0.65511.3%83.6%0.65412.9%0.0-7.3%---------

P ropiona lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%88.5%0.8781.3%-0.3-60.3%---------Spring990.52691.0920.0%58.7%1.5848.7%53.6%1.6848.7%0.14.0%---------Summer990.10631.0868.5%43.0%2.22969.1%34.5%2.32276.6%-0.8-47.8%---------Fall990.60811.0891.1%73.0%0.67714.4%72.7%0.67615.6%0.03.8%---------Winter000.72971.0890.0%77.5%0.5890.0%78.7%0.6890.0%0.0-2.9%---------Spring00*0.85911.0920.0%64.1%0.67320.7%35.6%0.77320.7%-0.1-20.5%---------Summer000.60821.0931.1%59.1%0.6922.1%64.1%0.6922.1%0.03.0%---------Fall000.93961.05412.9%85.2%0.65511.3%87.3%0.65412.9%0.02.6%---------Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

V a le ra lde hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring990.15391.0920.0%94.6%0.5848.7%95.2%0.5848.7%0.04.4%---------Summer99---1.0868.5%90.7%0.72969.1%100.0%0.52276.6%0.00.0%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%100.0%0.57714.4%100.0%0.57615.6%0.00.0%---------Winter00---1.0890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%98.9%0.5890.0%0.0-0.2%---------Spring00*---1.0920.0%100.0%0.57320.7%64.4%0.67320.7%-0.1-11.8%---------Summer00---1.0931.1%98.9%0.5922.1%100.0%0.5922.1%0.01.7%---------Fall00---1.05412.9%100.0%0.55511.3%100.0%0.55412.9%0.00.0%---------

2 , 5

- Di me t h y l be nz a l de hy de ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---1.0790.0%100.0%0.5781.3%100.0%0.5781.3%0.00.0%---------Spring99---1.0920.0%100.0%0.5848.7%100.0%0.5848.7%0.00.0%---------Summer99---1.0868.5%100.0%0.52969.1%100.0%0.52276.6%0.00.0%---------Fall99---1.0891.1%100.0%0.57714.4%100.0%0.57615.6%0.00.0%---------Winter00---1.0890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%100.0%0.5890.0%0.00.0%---------Spring00*---1.0920.0%100.0%0.57320.7%100.0%0.57320.7%0.00.0%---------Summer00---1.0931.1%98.9%0.5922.1%100.0%0.5922.1%0.00.0%---------Fall00---1.05412.9%100.0%0.55511.3%100.0%0.55412.9%0.00.0%---------

Tot a l Alde hy de s ( ug/m

3 )Winter99---#DIV/0!---12.7781.3%---15.1781.3%-2.5-19.5%2-1.170.2450Spring99---#DIV/0!---19.6848.7%---16.7848.7%3.215.9%02.180.0321Summer99---100.0%---26.72969.1%---19.92177.7%-2.3-14.1%0-1.560.1335Fall99---100.0%---14.77714.4%---12.97615.6%1.812.5%05.05<0.0001Winter00---#DIV/0!---12.7890.0%---10.9890.0%1.814.2%05.73<0.0001Spring00*---0.0%---14.37320.7%---22.07320.7%-6.9-45.8%5-4.15<0.0001Summer00---100.0%---14.3922.1%---13.8922.1%0.43.0%00.940.3476Fall00---100.0%---13.45511.3%---11.85412.9%1.511.1%05.45<0.0001

Chrom ium ( ng/m

3 )Winter99-0.02265790.0%97.5%2.7790.0%97.5%5.1790.0%-2.5-91.8%---------Spring99---5911.1%100.0%2.5920.0%98.9%2.5911.1%0.0-1.8%---------Summer99---5868.5%97.7%2.63562.8%100.0%2.52870.2%0.00.0%---------Fall99---5891.1%100.0%2.5882.2%97.7%2.6873.3%-0.1-2.9%---------Winter00-0.02155854.5%98.8%2.68010.1%96.3%2.77713.5%0.0-0.8%---------Spring00---5893.3%100.0%2.5857.6%96.5%2.68210.9%-0.1-5.6%---------Summer00-0.014258311.7%97.6%2.9922.1%98.9%2.68212.8%0.310.4%---------Fall00-0.04425594.8%93.2%3.25117.7%96.1%3.04921.0%-0.3-10.8%---------

Iron ( ng/m

3 )Winter990.184322790.0%5.1%97.6790.0%7.6%107.9790.0%-10.4-10.6%0-0.630.5275Spring990.577822911.1%4.4%77.0920.0%10.9%67.4911.1%9.412.2%02.130.0362Summer990.464722868.5%3.5%88.43562.8%5.7%93.02870.2%7.38.9%00.540.5943Fall990.600422891.1%7.9%72.5882.2%4.5%93.3873.3%-20.7-28.4%0-3.420.0010Winter000.252722854.5%24.7%65.08010.1%31.3%80.37713.5%-21.2-34.4%0-0.970.3361Spring000.538722893.3%36.0%57.0857.6%30.6%60.28210.9%-4.6-8.5%2-0.610.5437Summer000.7977228311.7%56.6%49.4922.1%54.3%43.68212.8%5.311.5%01.580.1176Fall000.883322594.8%33.9%69.15117.7%29.4%64.24921.0%14.419.2%02.780.0077

L ead

( ng/m

3 )Winter990.194812790.0%93.7%6.7790.0%92.4%6.7790.0%0.0-0.4%---------Spring99---12911.1%95.6%6.4920.0%100.0%6.0911.1%0.46.4%---------Summer99---12868.5%96.5%6.33562.8%100.0%6.02870.2%0.00.0%---------Fall990.344212891.1%92.1%7.1882.2%89.8%7.2873.3%-0.1-1.2%---------Winter00-0.011512854.5%90.6%6.98010.1%85.0%9.77713.5%-3.0-44.2%---------Spring00-0.030612893.3%97.8%6.2857.6%96.5%6.38210.9%-0.1-1.4%---------Summer00-0.0551128311.7%96.4%6.5922.1%92.4%6.78212.8%-0.3-4.7%---------Fall00---12594.8%96.6%6.35117.7%100.0%6.04921.0%0.35.5%---------Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

Ma nga ne s e ( ng/m

3 )Winter990.07743790.0%93.7%1.7790.0%92.4%2.6790.0%-0.9-50.6%---------Spring991.00003911.1%98.9%1.5920.0%98.9%1.6911.1%0.0-1.6%---------Summer99-0.03703868.5%96.5%1.63562.8%97.1%1.62870.2%0.0-1.9%---------Fall990.75843891.1%93.3%1.8882.2%90.9%1.8873.3%0.0-0.8%---------Winter000.66543854.5%89.4%1.88010.1%93.8%1.77713.5%0.15.6%---------Spring000.41133893.3%93.3%1.7857.6%97.6%1.58210.9%0.14.8%---------Summer000.023838311.7%63.9%2.7922.1%87.0%1.88212.8%0.830.7%---------Fall000.36023594.8%83.1%2.05117.7%94.1%1.64921.0%0.421.7%---------

N i ckel

( ng/m

3 )Winter990.07294790.0%1.3%35.1790.0%7.6%30.7790.0%4.412.6%00.910.3675Spring990.16744911.1%30.8%10.3920.0%48.9%5.5911.1%4.846.5%02.280.0250Summer990.51964868.5%54.7%5.53562.8%57.1%4.72870.2%-0.8-19.9%1-0.790.4382Fall990.61024891.1%31.5%11.8882.2%28.4%10.7873.3%1.08.4%00.870.3877Winter000.55284854.5%8.2%27.08010.1%17.5%16.47713.5%10.538.2%23.370.0012Spring000.40474893.3%28.1%11.7857.6%36.5%8.68210.9%2.824.6%02.630.0102Summer000.276946234.0%9.7%12.06530.9%21.5%8.95541.5%3.224.5%02.850.0061Fall00-0.03254594.8%22.0%8.95117.7%47.1%6.14921.0%2.831.8%01.380.1727

Zinc ( ng/m

3 )Winter990.318377790.0%97.5%39.8790.0%96.2%41.0790.0%-1.2-3.0%---------Spring99---77911.1%100.0%38.5920.0%100.0%38.5911.1%0.00.0%---------Summer99---77868.5%97.7%40.43562.8%100.0%38.52870.2%0.00.0%---------Fall990.335777891.1%96.6%41.5882.2%94.3%41.9873.3%-0.3-0.8%---------Winter00-0.031377854.5%95.3%42.08010.1%96.3%40.87713.5%-1.1-2.9%---------Spring00---77893.3%98.9%39.1857.6%100.0%38.58210.9%0.71.7%---------Summer00-0.0295778311.7%98.8%39.0922.1%93.5%46.38212.8%-8.2-21.0%---------Fall00---77594.8%100.0%38.55117.7%98.0%39.64921.0%-1.1-2.9%---------

Tot a l Me t a ls ( ng/m

3 )Winter990.1580---790.0%---136.0763.8%---152.5763.8%-14.1-10.2%0-0.590.5582Spring990.4753---884.3%---89.9848.7%---77.58112.0%14.615.6%02.430.0173Summer990.4136---8311.7%---99.53364.9%---101.92573.4%6.36.8%00.410.6858Fall990.6825---837.8%---95.5846.7%---116.27912.2%-24.3-25.5%0-3.010.0035Winter000.1771---7911.2%---103.96823.6%---119.76329.2%-19.5-18.5%0-0.590.5600Spring000.6010---7914.1%---74.27221.7%---77.36430.4%-1.0-1.3%2-0.100.9214Summer000.6707---6827.7%---68.27322.3%---70.16234.0%-1.1-1.5%1-0.140.8900Fall000.7310---569.7%---80.14232.3%---83.53937.1%20.920.6%02.250.0306

SO 2 ( De nude r) ( ug/m

3 )Winter99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Summer990.8138---877.4%---17.93463.8%---14.02969.1%3.823.2%03.530.0014Fall990.9337---882.2%---28.6882.2%---27.4873.3%1.34.5%01.930.0563Winter000.8137---854.5%---43.7845.6%---41.68010.1%2.45.4%01.600.1144Spring000.8190---920.0%---18.2920.0%---16.5920.0%1.79.3%02.860.0052Summer000.7395---2276.6%---17.82276.6%---16.82276.6%1.05.6%00.680.5015Fall00------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------

HCl ( ug/m

3 )Winter99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Summer990.9228---877.4%---1.003463.8%---0.922969.1%0.099.3%01.710.0978Fall990.6053---891.1%---0.27882.2%---0.31882.2%-0.04-16.3%1-1.750.0837Winter000.1119---854.5%---0.30845.6%---0.408010.1%-0.10-34.0%2-1.830.0706Spring000.8742---920.0%---0.41920.0%---0.42920.0%-0.02-3.9%0-0.630.5323Summer000.8952---2276.6%---0.812276.6%---0.972276.6%-0.16-19.9%0-4.960.0001Fall00------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

HNO 2 ( ug/m

3 )Winter99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Summer990.9135---868.5%---1.923463.8%---1.922969.1%0.2814.1%02.220.0344Fall990.8774---891.1%---4.42882.2%---4.04882.2%0.398.7%02.970.0039Winter000.7815---854.5%---4.00845.6%---3.668010.1%0.328.0%01.640.1059Spring000.7409---920.0%---2.92920.0%---2.42920.0%0.5017.2%03.440.0009Summer000.7559---2276.6%---1.522276.6%---1.372276.6%0.149.5%00.860.4012Fall00------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------

HNO 3 ( ug/m

3 )Winter99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Summer990.9793---859.6%---3.853463.8%---2.522870.2%0.3311.5%03.710.0009Fall990.7941---891.1%---0.62882.2%---0.55882.2%0.0711.9%11.490.1409Winter000.5801---854.5%---1.00845.6%---0.508010.1%0.5050.1%25.07<0.0001Spring000.9494---920.0%---1.22920.0%---1.20920.0%0.021.5%00.380.7017Summer000.8754---2276.6%---3.232276.6%---3.132276.6%0.092.9%00.820.4222Fall00------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%------0

NH 3 ( ug/m

3 )Winter99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Summer990.6133---5145.7%---4.3162078.7%---4.514495.7%0.55110.4%02.380.0976Fall99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Winter000.9282---8010.1%---2.7537812.4%---1.3297614.6%1.48553.1%017.31<0.0001Spring000.9120---5540.2%---3.9535837.0%---2.7715540.2%1.17429.7%09.18<0.0001Summer00------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Fall00------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------

Tot a l P olle n (#/ m 3 )Winter990.5555---790.0%---0.4790.0%---0.9790.0%-0.5-116.8%0-2.510.0141Spring990.8690---920.0%---23.5920.0%---33.4920.0%-9.9-42.3%1-2.580.0115Summer990.5541---940.0%---4.34156.4%---8.24156.4%-2.5-43.6%1-1.450.1535Fall990.8574---900.0%---0.3900.0%---0.7900.0%-0.3-106.6%1-3.120.0024Winter000.9770---890.0%---2.2836.7%---2.0836.7%0.312.0%01.130.2626Spring000.9806---920.0%---64.7920.0%---106.5920.0%-41.7-64.5%3-1.220.2261Summer000.6997---940.0%---3.3940.0%---6.2940.0%-2.9-87.3%3-1.700.0934Fall000.7618---611.6%---0.2611.6%---0.4611.6%-0.2-80.9%0-3.200.0022

P olle n - Tre e s (#/ m 3 )Winter990.5304---790.0%---0.4790.0%---0.9790.0%-0.5-117.9%0-2.450.0165Spring990.8670---920.0%---23.1920.0%---32.6920.0%-9.5-41.3%1-2.480.0149Summer990.2263---940.0%---1.34651.1%---1.24651.1%0.319.9%10.620.5410Fall99-0.0391---900.0%---0.0900.0%---0.1900.0%0.0-63.1%0-1.150.2522Winter000.9770---890.0%---2.2836.7%---2.0836.7%0.311.9%01.110.2716Spring000.9805---920.0%---64.2920.0%---105.7920.0%-41.5-64.7%3-1.210.2286Summer000.0719---940.0%---0.4940.0%---0.6940.0%-0.2-52.1%0-0.710.4773Fall00-0.0723---611.6%---0.0611.6%---0.0611.6%0.05.9%10.150.8816

P olle n - Ra gw e e d (#/ m 3 )Winter99-0.0297---790.0%---0.0790.0%---0.0790.0%0.079.7%01.650.1027Spring99-0.0137---920.0%---0.0920.0%---0.0920.0%0.01.0%00.010.9937Summer990.8813---940.0%---1.44651.1%---1.74651.1%-0.3-20.5%1-0.600.5502Fall990.8181---900.0%---0.2900.0%---0.3900.0%-0.1-49.5%0-1.700.0932Winter00-0.0122---890.0%---0.0836.7%---0.0836.7%0.05.0%00.040.9713Spring00------920.0%---0.0920.0%---0.0920.0%0.0---0-1.420.1584Summer000.7962---940.0%---1.1940.0%---1.8940.0%-0.7-67.5%0-3.630.0005Fall000.5930---611.6%---0.1611.6%---0.1611.6%0.0-60.0%0-1.990.0513Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

Po l l en - Gr asses ( # / m 3 )Winter990.1743---790.0%---0.0790.0%---0.0790.0%0.0-126.4%0-1.240.2175Spring990.8412---920.0%---0.4920.0%---0.7920.0%-0.4-100.2%0-1.780.0790Summer990.4835---940.0%---1.04651.1%---1.64651.1%-0.1-7.8%2-0.260.7945Fall990.1981---900.0%---0.0900.0%---0.0900.0%0.027.2%00.410.6846Winter00------890.0%---0.0836.7%---0.0836.7%0.0100.0%01.420.1590Spring000.8609---920.0%---0.6920.0%---0.8920.0%-0.2-38.5%0-1.820.0723Summer000.7369---940.0%---0.9940.0%---1.0940.0%-0.2-18.1%0-1.100.2753Fall00-0.0517---611.6%---0.0611.6%---0.0611.6%0.0-210.3%0-1.300.1998

T o t al M o l d (#/ m 3 )Winter990.1840---790.0%---5.7790.0%---9.0790.0%-3.3-57.9%0-0.840.4036Spring990.7962---920.0%---231.7920.0%---265.4920.0%-33.8-14.6%1-0.840.4043Summer990.8773---940.0%---1424.64156.4%---1335.84156.4%31.92.3%00.410.6838Fall990.8325---900.0%---372.4900.0%---449.5900.0%-77.1-20.7%0-1.500.1360Winter000.2690---890.0%---3.6836.7%---10.7836.7%-7.2-203.6%0-3.290.0015Spring000.6553---920.0%---475.7920.0%---363.4920.0%112.323.6%11.260.2099Summer000.8520---940.0%---832.3940.0%---1041.2940.0%-208.8-25.1%0-4.38<0.0001Fall000.8593---611.6%---446.9611.6%---499.7611.6%-52.8-11.8%0-1.450.1530

Ba s idos pore s (#/ m 3 )Winter990.6239---790.0%---1.1790.0%---0.9790.0%0.114.0%00.270.7870Spring990.4571---920.0%---31.7920.0%---37.3920.0%-5.5-17.5%0-0.790.4300Summer990.7346---940.0%---372.04651.1%---345.84651.1%-63.2-22.4%1-0.910.3683Fall990.8073---900.0%---194.6900.0%---248.5900.0%-53.9-27.7%0-1.460.1492Winter000.5790---890.0%---0.6836.7%---1.4836.7%-0.8-130.6%0-2.240.0281Spring000.3739---920.0%---205.8920.0%---106.2920.0%99.648.4%02.320.0227Summer000.6968---940.0%---452.8940.0%---554.3940.0%-101.5-22.4%1-2.510.0136Fall000.8097---611.6%---187.8611.6%---220.0611.6%-32.2-17.2%0-1.560.1233

A sco sp o r es (#/ m 3 )Winter990.0403---790.0%---1.2790.0%---4.7790.0%-3.4-276.6%0-0.960.3377Spring990.5139---920.0%---53.0920.0%---49.6920.0%3.46.5%00.290.7760Summer990.4360---940.0%---60.54651.1%---81.84651.1%-2.3-3.0%0-0.150.8820Fall990.6262---900.0%---16.5900.0%---24.1900.0%-7.6-45.7%0-2.850.0054Winter000.1396---890.0%---0.7836.7%---1.6836.7%-0.8-111.2%0-1.800.0758Spring000.6419---920.0%---39.0920.0%---38.6920.0%0.41.0%10.050.9603Summer000.8050---940.0%---93.8940.0%---110.9940.0%-17.1-18.2%0-1.850.0681Fall000.5409---611.6%---38.9611.6%---42.1611.6%-3.2-8.3%1-1.080.2858

M i to sp o r es (#/ m 3 )Winter990.3687---790.0%---3.1790.0%---3.4790.0%-0.3-9.8%0-0.260.7992Spring990.8438---920.0%---143.2920.0%---176.8920.0%-33.6-23.4%1-1.230.2223Summer990.9454---940.0%---980.04651.1%---752.24651.1%117.313.5%02.840.0068Fall990.8535---900.0%---155.2900.0%---172.7900.0%-17.5-11.2%0-0.880.3800Winter000.2297---890.0%---2.2836.7%---6.2836.7%-4.2-205.4%0-2.600.0112Spring000.8058---920.0%---228.2920.0%---215.9920.0%12.45.4%10.290.7698Summer000.8470---940.0%---275.8940.0%---365.2940.0%-89.4-32.4%0-2.800.0062Fall000.7759---611.6%---212.0611.6%---229.1611.6%-17.1-8.0%0-0.560.5755

(#/ m 3 )

M i to sp o r es - D ar kWinter990.5358---790.0%---3.0790.0%---2.1790.0%0.929.1%00.960.3391Spring990.8496---920.0%---142.5920.0%---173.4920.0%-30.8-21.6%1-1.200.2346Summer990.9449---940.0%---968.34651.1%---748.74651.1%108.012.6%02.650.0110Fall990.8637---900.0%---142.3900.0%---167.8900.0%-25.5-17.9%0-1.310.1935Winter000.1807---890.0%---2.1836.7%---5.2836.7%-3.2-159.4%0-2.220.0291Spring000.8123---920.0%---219.5920.0%---211.0920.0%8.53.9%10.210.8359Summer000.8544---940.0%---269.6940.0%---353.3940.0%-83.7-31.1%0-2.690.0085Fall000.7807---611.6%---207.9611.6%---227.2611.6%-19.3-9.3%0-0.650.5163Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

M i tos por e s - Non-Da r k (#/ m 3 )Winter99-0.0287---790.0%---0.1790.0%---1.3790.0%-1.2-959.5%0-1.490.1395Spring99-0.0517---920.0%---0.7920.0%---3.5920.0%-2.8-392.5%1-1.360.1767Summer990.0435---940.0%---11.74651.1%---3.54651.1%9.372.8%01.690.0975Fall99-0.0365---900.0%---12.9900.0%---4.9900.0%8.062.0%01.450.1519Winter000.5327---890.0%---0.0836.7%---1.0836.7%-1.0-2545.3%0-2.070.0420Spring000.1554---920.0%---8.7920.0%---4.9920.0%3.944.3%01.300.1978Summer000.0740---940.0%---6.2940.0%---11.9940.0%-5.7-92.5%0-1.180.2423Fall000.6535---611.6%---4.1611.6%---1.9611.6%2.253.6%01.170.2450

Smal l Sp o r es (<10u m) (#/ m 3 )Winter990.1706---790.0%---5.3790.0%---8.5790.0%-3.2-60.7%0-0.820.4158Spring990.7984---920.0%---225.3920.0%---261.3920.0%-36.0-16.0%1-0.900.3722Summer990.8814---940.0%---1348.54651.1%---1108.44651.1%70.36.0%10.860.3949Fall990.8293---900.0%---360.6900.0%---439.7900.0%-79.1-21.9%0-1.540.1270Winter000.3441---890.0%---3.5836.7%---9.1836.7%-5.7-169.8%0-3.340.0013Spring000.6442---920.0%---460.2920.0%---348.6920.0%111.624.2%11.290.2000Summer000.8486---940.0%---804.8940.0%---1009.7940.0%-204.8-25.4%0-4.35<0.0001Fall000.8489---611.6%---433.2611.6%---483.7611.6%-50.5-11.7%2-0.930.3570

L a r g e Sp o r es (>10u m ) (#/ m 3 )Winter990.1772---790.0%---0.1790.0%---0.5790.0%-0.3-301.1%0-1.770.0802Spring990.4358---920.0%---2.6920.0%---2.1920.0%0.417.3%10.890.3751Summer990.7055---940.0%---60.64651.1%---67.64651.1%-17.7-35.5%0-1.910.0625Fall990.7024---900.0%---4.7900.0%---5.0900.0%-0.3-5.9%0-0.380.7020Winter00-0.0199---890.0%---0.0836.7%---0.2836.7%-0.1-303.6%0-1.130.2620Spring000.9167---920.0%---8.1920.0%---7.7920.0%0.44.6%10.210.8357Summer000.6972---940.0%---13.3940.0%---15.0940.0%-1.7-12.4%0-1.110.2681Fall000.5883---611.6%---4.8611.6%---6.4611.6%-1.6-32.6%0-1.420.1609

P a rt ic le Count (#)Winter99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Spring99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Summer99------0100.0%------0100.0%------0100.0%---------------Fall990.0058---891.1%---1255412900.0%---1278806891.1%-30518-2.4%1-0.360.7174Winter000.1092---6625.8%---15158467416.9%---12779946527.0%22162714.7%14.78<0.0001Spring000.0761---7518.5%---14422807419.6%---19525566628.3%-450936-31.1%2-5.03<0.0001Summer00-0.0999---3167.0%---14517683859.6%---14939972969.1%-140774-9.8%1-1.120.2739Fall000.2066---4724.2%---18233505314.5%---19353103937.1%-177335-10.0%2-1.280.2084

P M 2. 5 (F R M ) ( ug/m

3 )Winter990.3269---6517.7%---17.702370.9%---15.281679.7%2.0213.1%00.830.4202Spring990.7468---7518.5%---14.44875.4%---13.657023.9%0.815.6%01.200.2327Summer990.4443---7817.0%---17.883167.0%---16.652177.7%1.016.4%30.480.6389Fall990.9319---5440.0%---15.945341.1%---12.013758.9%1.6111.5%03.500.0013Winter000.9812---6230.3%---19.136527.0%---17.174944.9%1.598.2%04.78<0.0001Spring000.9898---884.3%---15.34848.7%---13.828112.0%1.6711.0%19.97<0.0001Summer000.9751---877.4%---16.90895.3%---15.038212.8%1.7010.0%08.62<0.0001Fall000.9861---620.0%---16.18578.1%---13.99578.1%2.0212.6%15.99<0.0001

PM 10 (F R M ) ( ug/m

3 )Winter99-1.0000---376.9%---12.3746.2%---12.4376.9%3.024.3%33.000.0955Spring990.9734---146.7%---22.41313.3%---22.21220.0%0.72.9%10.990.3440Summer990.9512---156.3%---27.3381.3%---38.3381.3%0.00.0%00.001.0000Fall990.8903---150.0%---17.21126.7%---16.21126.7%2.412.7%32.830.0177Winter000.9785---150.0%---19.51220.0%---20.31220.0%-0.2-0.8%0-0.190.8499Spring000.9614---150.0%---22.31220.0%---24.21220.0%-0.2-0.7%0-0.120.9059Summer000.9178---160.0%---22.0160.0%---20.7160.0%1.36.0%21.850.0849Fall000.9661---910.0%---27.7640.0%---23.0550.0%0.41.8%00.280.7943Appendix 4 - Statistical Analyses - By Season (continued)Seasonal Statistics and Analyses - Daily Averagesa

A n al yte ( unit s )SeasonPearsonCorrelationDetectionLimitManhattanBronxDifferencebNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)NonDetects(%)MeancNMissing(%)MeancMean (%)dPaired T-test with AutocorrelationAdjustment# of lagsTp-value

T emp er atu r e (d eg F )Winter990.9973---790.0%---37.0790.0%---36.0790.0%1.02.6%013.93<0.0001Spring990.9984---875.4%---59.8875.4%---59.2875.4%0.61.0%010.06<0.0001Summer990.9904---7322.3%---76.83266.0%---76.13167.0%0.40.5%02.100.0438Fall990.9983---864.4%---53.5900.0%---52.4864.4%0.71.3%011.03<0.0001Winter000.9977---827.9%---37.8890.0%---35.8827.9%1.12.8%013.10<0.0001Spring000.9978---920.0%---58.8920.0%---58.1920.0%0.71.3%09.41<0.0001Summer000.9819---895.3%---72.6877.4%---72.68212.8%0.10.2%20.820.4120Fall000.9970---611.6%---55.15412.9%---53.85412.9%0.81.4%08.66<0.0001

(%)

Re la t iv e Hum idit yWinter990.9925---790.0%---60790.0%---66790.0%-5-8.7%1-16.27<0.0001Spring990.9934---875.4%---558210.9%---618210.9%-6-10.3%0-22.07<0.0001Summer990.9025---7322.3%---623167.0%---673167.0%-5-8.7%0-4.010.0004Fall990.9956---900.0%---65900.0%---71900.0%-6-9.0%1-24.18<0.0001Winter000.9870---827.9%---61890.0%---67827.9%-6-9.7%0-16.88<0.0001Spring000.9482---920.0%---66920.0%---73920.0%-7-11.2%3-5.57<0.0001Summer000.9903---940.0%---708410.6%---788410.6%-9-13.7%5-15.90<0.0001Fall000.9806---611.6%---65569.7%---75569.7%-9-14.1%1-13.46<0.0001aFor analytes collected on an hourly basis, daily averages were calculated for days with at least 75% valid databDifference=Manhattan - BronxcNon-detects were given values of 1/2 the detection limit for statistical calculationsdMean Difference (%) =Mean Difference / Manhattan (using only days with daily averages available for both sites)*Data for April 20-30, 2000 at the Bronx site has been excluded from these analyses18 0Appe ndix 5 – Pe arson Correl ati o ns Am ong All Anal ytes Within Sampling Location

18 1Appendix 5 - Correlation MatrixBronxphbsulfatebcarb250bsootbo3bnoxbnobno2bso2bpm2_5_30bpm10_30bacetaldebacetonebacroleinbbenzaldebbutyraldbcrotonalbformaldebhexaldehbisovalerbm_tolualbo_tolualbp_tolualbpropionabvaleraldb_2_5_dimbtotal_aldehydesbmetal_crbmetal_febmetal_pbbmetal_mnbmetal_nibmetal_znbtotal_metalsbdenu_so2bhclbhno2bhno3bnh3btotalpolbtree_pollenbragweedbgrassesbtotalmolbbasidosporesbascosporesbmitosporesbdark_mitobnon_dark_mitobsmall_sporesblarge_sporesbparttotbfrm2_5bfrm10btemp_avebrh_avebmax_250bmax_sootbmax_o3bmax_8hrbmax_noxbmax_nobmax_no2bmax_so2bmax_pm2_5bmax_pm10bmax_parttotbtemp_maxbrh_maxbphbsulfatebcarb250sootbo3bnoxbnobno2bso2bpm2_5_pm10_3acetaldeacetoneacroleinbenzaldbutyraldcrotonalformaldehexaldeisovalerm_toluao_tolualp_tolualpropionavalerald_2_5_ditotal_aldmetal_cmetal_femetal_pmetal_mmetal_nmetal_ztotal_medenu_sohclb1-0.661-0.495-0.174-0.255-0.147-0.071-0.2880.064-0.584-0.601-0.460-0.1490.018-0.227-0.308-0.140-0.558-0.240-0.109-0.058-0.280-0.191-0.143-0.4150.053-0.0340.019-0.0020.094-0.0780.0030.018-0.462-0.66110.5590.3430.2940.2340.1340.4100.1330.8610.8090.5760.225-0.0200.3550.2630.0880.6410.2770.072-0.0170.4180.2720.2450.506-0.0300.1540.0250.0550.0260.1260.1100.1320.646-0.4950.55910.4300.1210.3220.2430.4300.1460.6420.6280.6790.318-0.0190.2380.3620.2250.6860.2960.028-0.0090.2960.2280.0770.604-0.0670.2220.1160.025-0.0040.1220.180-0.0010.400-0.1740.3430.4301-0.3450.7960.7610.6940.5850.6370.6550.5370.405-0.0320.174-0.0840.1720.304-0.0830.003-0.0640.1840.125-0.0690.420-0.0070.4000.1740.1540.3280.2500.4180.568-0.017-0.2550.2940.121-0.3451-0.497-0.544-0.271-0.4880.1180.1390.0950.182-0.0030.1020.335-0.1350.3560.278-0.0030.2060.1650.2030.266-0.011-0.129-0.101-0.046-0.155-0.021-0.149-0.4450.560-0.1470.2340.3220.796-0.49710.9690.8250.6540.5270.5850.5430.335-0.0130.268-0.0280.0860.273-0.0020.253-0.0250.2850.0440.0360.3520.0680.4860.2910.3710.4750.3190.4910.586-0.070-0.0710.1340.2430.761-0.5440.96910.6620.6500.4200.4680.4400.254-0.0200.226-0.1100.0650.175-0.0620.248-0.0320.2550.007-0.0130.2490.0780.4640.2940.3640.4520.3220.4740.579-0.145-0.2880.4100.4300.694-0.2710.8250.66210.5020.6490.7070.6440.4410.0040.3000.1670.1150.4300.1330.2030.0000.2840.1230.1400.5030.0310.4170.2100.2930.4060.2330.4090.5000.1420.0640.1330.1460.585-0.4880.6540.6500.50210.3890.3350.2720.179-0.011-0.007-0.2460.150-0.008-0.1530.000-0.0120.022-0.059-0.0450.113-0.0110.2660.1890.0900.4220.1710.3090.957-0.038-0.5840.8610.6420.6370.1180.5270.4200.6490.38910.9490.7430.387-0.0140.3680.2210.1480.6950.2360.1980.0400.4500.2470.2380.634-0.0390.3240.1430.0910.1560.2020.2850.3070.542-0.6010.8090.6280.6550.1390.5850.4680.7070.3350.94910.8110.577-0.0190.4010.3420.1970.7550.3050.2160.0430.5000.2180.2590.738-0.0400.3690.2120.0830.1010.1750.2990.2900.518-0.4600.5760.6790.5370.0950.5430.4400.6440.2720.7430.81110.582-0.0610.5280.5190.1320.8500.5070.065-0.0340.5360.2300.4070.871-0.0390.2820.1460.0710.1010.1290.2500.1240.376-0.1490.2250.3180.4050.1820.3350.2540.4410.1790.3870.5770.5821-0.0580.2260.2750.0930.4370.185-0.032-0.0730.2250.1870.1630.824-0.0100.2010.0870.0620.2170.0720.201-0.0220.3010.018-0.020-0.019-0.032-0.003-0.013-0.0200.004-0.011-0.014-0.019-0.061-0.0581-0.008-0.017-0.016-0.045-0.012-0.005-0.003-0.012-0.012-0.006-0.0620.017-0.001-0.005-0.006-0.004-0.007-0.004-0.010-0.027-0.2270.3550.2380.1740.1020.2680.2260.300-0.0070.3680.4010.5280.226-0.00810.486-0.0630.4770.6020.153-0.0140.6670.0560.5720.466-0.0060.060-0.0100.008-0.040-0.0140.035-0.0390.276-0.3080.2630.362-0.0840.335-0.028-0.1100.167-0.2460.2210.3420.5190.275-0.0170.48610.0540.5630.7340.024-0.0190.4160.2520.5030.591-0.026-0.058-0.049-0.046-0.141-0.036-0.079-0.2660.267-0.1400.0880.2250.172-0.1350.0860.0650.1150.1500.1480.1970.1320.093-0.016-0.0630.05410.108-0.086-0.0260.001-0.0630.198-0.0490.206-0.0250.1110.068-0.006-0.0090.0080.0720.3830.049-0.5580.6410.6860.3040.3560.2730.1750.430-0.0080.6950.7550.8500.437-0.0450.4770.5630.10810.5780.0950.0020.5400.2600.3930.821-0.0440.2030.0800.034-0.0290.0930.154-0.1000.516-0.2400.2770.296-0.0830.278-0.002-0.0620.133-0.1530.2360.3050.5070.185-0.0120.6020.734-0.0860.57810.117-0.0110.5230.0670.7060.509-0.015-0.054-0.028-0.022-0.075-0.049-0.067-0.1870.256-0.1090.0720.0280.003-0.0030.2530.2480.2030.0000.1980.2160.065-0.032-0.0050.1530.024-0.0260.0950.11710.5060.112-0.0100.0740.063-0.0110.1780.1360.0040.0130.0130.144-0.142-0.057-0.058-0.017-0.009-0.064-0.025-0.0320.000-0.0120.0400.043-0.034-0.073-0.003-0.014-0.0190.0010.002-0.0110.5061-0.022-0.013-0.010-0.021-0.0030.039-0.005-0.0060.005-0.0070.027-0.118-0.023-0.2800.4180.2960.1840.2060.2850.2550.2840.0220.4500.5000.5360.225-0.0120.6670.416-0.0630.5400.5230.112-0.02210.0250.4540.485-0.0100.1500.0880.033-0.0170.0590.117-0.0230.365-0.1910.2720.2280.1250.1650.0440.0070.123-0.0590.2470.2180.2300.187-0.0120.0560.2520.1980.2600.067-0.010-0.0130.02510.0150.401-0.0200.077-0.011-0.025-0.044-0.0360.029-0.0490.489-0.1430.2450.077-0.0690.2030.036-0.0130.140-0.0450.2380.2590.4070.163-0.0060.5720.503-0.0490.3930.7060.074-0.0100.4540.01510.3740.000-0.057-0.017-0.010-0.026-0.022-0.059-0.0420.318-0.4150.5060.6040.4200.2660.3520.2490.5030.1130.6340.7380.8710.824-0.0620.4660.5910.2060.8210.5090.063-0.0210.4850.4010.3741-0.0340.2340.1010.0440.0950.0750.200-0.0380.4440.053-0.030-0.067-0.007-0.0110.0680.0780.031-0.011-0.039-0.040-0.039-0.0100.017-0.006-0.026-0.025-0.044-0.015-0.011-0.003-0.010-0.0200.000-0.03410.455-0.0040.9070.578-0.0010.5030.073-0.047-0.0340.1540.2220.400-0.1290.4860.4640.4170.2660.3240.3690.2820.201-0.0010.060-0.0580.1110.203-0.0540.1780.0390.1500.077-0.0570.2340.45510.6870.5230.5720.1910.9730.1310.0230.0190.0250.1160.174-0.1010.2910.2940.2100.1890.1430.2120.1460.087-0.005-0.010-0.0490.0680.080-0.0280.136-0.0050.088-0.011-0.0170.101-0.0040.68710.0460.2930.2810.6950.093-0.036-0.0020.0550.0250.154-0.0460.3710.3640.2930.0900.0910.0830.0710.062-0.0060.008-0.046-0.0060.034-0.0220.004-0.0060.033-0.025-0.0100.0440.9070.5230.04610.6310.1450.5860.2250.0070.0940.026-0.0040.328-0.1550.4750.4520.4060.4220.1560.1010.1010.217-0.004-0.040-0.141-0.009-0.029-0.0750.0130.005-0.017-0.044-0.0260.0950.5780.5720.2930.63110.4480.6840.505-0.082-0.0780.1260.1220.250-0.0210.3190.3220.2330.1710.2020.1750.1290.072-0.007-0.014-0.0360.0080.093-0.0490.013-0.0070.059-0.036-0.0220.075-0.0010.1910.2810.1450.44810.3530.283-0.0620.0030.1100.1800.418-0.1490.4910.4740.4090.3090.2850.2990.2500.201-0.0040.035-0.0790.0720.154-0.0670.1440.0270.1170.029-0.0590.2000.5030.9730.6950.5860.6840.35310.192-0.0270.0180.132-0.0010.568-0.4450.5860.5790.5000.9570.3070.2900.124-0.022-0.010-0.039-0.2660.383-0.100-0.187-0.142-0.118-0.023-0.049-0.042-0.0380.0730.1310.0930.2250.5050.2830.19210.078-0.4620.6460.400-0.0170.560-0.070-0.1450.142-0.0380.5420.5180.3760.301-0.0270.2760.2670.0490.5160.256-0.057-0.0230.3650.4890.3180.444-0.0470.023-0.0360.007-0.082-0.062-0.0270.0781-0.1680.1360.3760.752-0.6610.7780.7830.6270.5100.3760.3700.3160.192-0.036-0.110-0.2310.4300.078-0.201-0.013-0.036-0.068-0.069-0.1650.1410.0870.2660.0930.3290.3190.1940.2710.410-0.175-0.5810.7260.507-0.0610.740-0.141-0.2180.088-0.1740.6060.5840.4330.358-0.0200.3540.332-0.0130.6510.362-0.002-0.0120.4580.5300.3250.537-0.0410.033-0.0520.025-0.095-0.052-0.023-0.0470.821-0.5600.3940.6310.1760.1750.1730.0890.386-0.3370.5210.6010.5970.634-0.0650.3390.4090.2210.6560.3310.2410.2740.3950.2780.3030.6860.0950.127-0.0290.160-0.2020.0050.069-0.3640.315-0.1540.1900.182-0.0190.1640.0660.0120.173-0.0600.1890.2260.3430.1660.4570.474-0.0250.2630.5090.140-0.0060.2750.0630.7010.315-0.011-0.060-0.019-0.002-0.034-0.025-0.062-0.0250.228-0.1440.1780.174-0.0150.1570.0690.0160.173-0.0550.1810.2180.3400.1660.4560.473-0.0240.2560.5080.037-0.0120.2700.0620.7000.312-0.010-0.061-0.018-0.002-0.031-0.023-0.061-0.0210.224-0.2030.226-0.0230.0210.063-0.033-0.0610.042-0.1010.1520.1540.023-0.063-0.041-0.090-0.0830.095-0.063-0.017-0.0180.162-0.049-0.031-0.016-0.0080.017-0.0180.009-0.055-0.027-0.012-0.0440.022-0.2860.3900.280-0.0380.451-0.124-0.158-0.013-0.1390.2740.2980.2390.1230.1480.2970.0360.4270.2330.001-0.0160.2710.2220.1430.307-0.0210.016-0.022-0.026-0.081-0.014-0.020-0.1150.510-0.4380.4130.219-0.0950.422-0.131-0.1750.009-0.2300.3190.3270.2070.0310.1510.149-0.0770.4190.1420.0580.0850.2330.1230.0940.214-0.0370.015-0.044-0.003-0.1710.093-0.031-0.2170.556-0.3050.2280.053-0.0910.203-0.101-0.106-0.063-0.2360.1530.1430.046-0.0720.053-0.008-0.1370.1910.026-0.021-0.0350.112-0.025-0.0240.015-0.030-0.034-0.0280.000-0.1440.196-0.039-0.2110.138-0.2690.2040.093-0.1050.224-0.173-0.187-0.096-0.2450.0670.0900.055-0.037-0.0030.118-0.0410.1920.097-0.032-0.0010.0280.0650.0230.070-0.033-0.035-0.026-0.013-0.1260.088-0.059-0.2070.304-0.3900.4310.288-0.0520.463-0.092-0.1520.073-0.1300.3610.3820.2770.1140.1970.218-0.0090.4650.185-0.011-0.0080.2740.2000.1610.308-0.0280.059-0.042-0.003-0.135-0.025-0.007-0.1280.687-0.3920.4330.288-0.0520.467-0.090-0.1510.075-0.1270.3630.3860.2790.1160.1950.217-0.0090.4650.185-0.010-0.0080.2750.2020.1620.309-0.0270.060-0.042-0.003-0.133-0.029-0.006-0.1280.690-0.0250.0280.042-0.015-0.002-0.065-0.067-0.045-0.0830.0020.0050.016-0.0200.0680.041-0.0100.0670.022-0.012-0.0150.019-0.010-0.0020.016-0.018-0.011-0.015-0.003-0.0670.109-0.017-0.015-0.009-0.4260.4030.211-0.0920.415-0.128-0.1720.009-0.2300.3120.3220.2030.0330.1520.149-0.0830.4070.141-0.022-0.0230.2320.1170.0940.208-0.0360.013-0.043-0.003-0.1700.095-0.032-0.2070.541-0.3520.4410.332-0.0180.413-0.105-0.1460.018-0.1030.3550.3710.2110.0190.0650.1130.0710.4320.1140.0180.0060.1740.2360.0610.230-0.0210.079-0.025-0.008-0.0840.0080.029-0.0820.636-0.1980.149-0.115-0.2870.369-0.257-0.273-0.156-0.3160.0030.0610.1390.1750.2060.482-0.3680.2060.4140.0050.2550.1370.2050.2310.016-0.173-0.092-0.144-0.224-0.071-0.144-0.3260.143-0.5720.8380.6240.6780.0300.5750.4780.6330.5010.9200.8680.6780.361-0.0260.3150.1630.1710.5820.1680.1630.0380.3850.2440.1740.5640.0390.4910.2490.2700.2680.1560.4740.5490.480-0.6330.8130.6750.5120.1870.4810.4090.5100.1650.9320.9500.7480.4960.4910.4200.1930.7680.3050.0540.4340.5180.2390.7550.3160.6260.2550.4070.0850.0960.5510.2070.562-0.5740.4660.443-0.0910.518-0.154-0.2220.048-0.4740.3510.4200.3690.146-0.0490.1870.3540.0700.6230.2830.1120.0720.2890.2180.1540.415-0.0520.004-0.048-0.031-0.2970.015-0.060-0.4500.534-0.2920.2570.2000.155-0.3410.1240.1380.061-0.1390.1650.1080.064-0.046-0.0050.0580.0050.0400.0690.0430.1100.0100.0730.086-0.0380.0360.0140.0340.0190.021-0.0050.0140.036-0.230-0.187-0.4750.5340.9070.5580.0990.4160.3460.4800.1900.6710.6570.6660.407-0.0290.1960.2830.2210.6350.2030.023-0.0170.2690.2490.0140.618-0.0730.2930.1650.0490.0530.1490.2540.0660.329-0.1610.2780.4030.928-0.2770.7130.6910.6000.4840.5630.5920.4670.386-0.0260.105-0.0600.1430.257-0.083-0.004-0.0520.1410.135-0.0910.382-0.0090.4030.2230.1450.3010.2350.4230.456-0.043-0.4030.4540.262-0.1650.901-0.327-0.418-0.041-0.4210.3200.3540.2730.291-0.0050.1740.375-0.1220.5060.3170.0480.2920.2000.2200.407-0.015-0.069-0.084-0.024-0.1320.035-0.098-0.4000.632-0.3670.4070.230-0.2190.936-0.366-0.442-0.103-0.4300.2640.2950.2340.2590.0040.1610.375-0.1360.4680.3230.0400.2820.1720.2400.370-0.017-0.095-0.086-0.033-0.1380.019-0.122-0.4040.635-0.1440.1800.3180.704-0.3630.8910.8730.7130.4920.4740.5340.4870.336-0.0230.1830.0210.0720.2650.0160.148-0.0180.2490.0510.0660.3380.0420.4950.3240.3130.4070.2660.4840.409-0.039-0.1120.1390.2780.697-0.4080.8800.8870.6500.5000.4340.4890.4440.296-0.0300.169-0.0190.0590.221-0.0100.142-0.0230.2310.0330.0460.2890.0390.4860.3150.3160.3850.2540.4750.407-0.080-0.3530.4090.4590.5590.0010.6620.5040.8640.2670.6180.6760.6500.5200.0050.2920.2760.1040.4950.1840.1920.0060.3160.1570.1800.5750.0210.3880.2240.2480.3390.2170.3740.2810.2660.0070.1670.1950.518-0.3530.5910.5740.4850.8750.4010.3800.2820.160-0.018-0.008-0.1860.1490.062-0.111-0.0050.0200.046-0.038-0.0360.136-0.0140.2530.1550.0810.3690.1660.2810.851-0.001-0.5070.7140.5960.6290.0940.5510.4710.6050.3150.8760.8560.6800.373-0.0190.3050.2080.1460.6230.1980.1600.0200.4330.2220.2020.585-0.0410.3650.2370.0880.1570.2420.3340.2140.427-0.5290.6770.5870.6640.0660.6000.5120.6510.3030.8390.9010.7300.542-0.0250.3120.2930.2420.6620.2210.1580.0220.4340.2210.1820.671-0.0560.3620.2520.0720.1000.1760.2970.2480.392-0.2190.1580.1030.0140.1390.016-0.0050.072-0.1970.1570.2020.2690.2710.2070.324-0.1800.2550.2870.1220.2530.2370.1690.2960.052-0.005-0.030-0.002-0.1530.0520.007-0.3290.021-0.5600.4620.444-0.0710.537-0.130-0.2030.074-0.4490.3680.4530.4010.158-0.0480.2100.3730.0720.6420.3040.1220.0710.3090.2180.1680.436-0.0500.022-0.036-0.026-0.2850.024-0.041-0.4230.544-0.2980.2540.2110.151-0.2130.1130.1290.048-0.1640.1770.1490.108-0.014-0.0210.0880.0720.0140.1200.1080.1160.0300.1210.0550.0070.0800.0480.0490.0100.0610.0180.0340.052-0.236-0.120Appendix 5 - Correlation Matrix (continued)Bronxhno2bhno3bnh3btotalpolbtree_polragweedgrassestotalmolbasidosascospomitospodark_minon_darsmall_splarge_spparttotbfrm2_5bfrm10btemp_avrh_avebmax_25max_somax_o3max_8hmax_nomax_nomax_nomax_somax_pmmax_pmmax_patemp_mrh_maxbphbsulfatebcarb250bsootbo3bnoxbnobno2bso2bpm2_5_30bpm10_30bacetaldebacetonebacroleinbbenzaldebbutyraldbcrotonalbformaldebhexaldehbisovalerbm_tolualbo_tolualbp_tolualbpropionabvaleraldb_2_5_dimb-0.168-0.581-0.560-0.154-0.1440.1360.7260.3940.1900.1780.3760.5070.6310.1820.1740.752-0.0610.176-0.019-0.015-0.6610.7400.1750.1640.1570.778-0.1410.1730.0660.0690.783-0.2180.0890.0120.0160.6270.0880.3860.1730.1730.510-0.174-0.337-0.060-0.0550.3760.6060.5210.1890.1810.3700.5840.6010.2260.2180.3160.4330.5970.3430.3400.1920.3580.6340.1660.166-0.036-0.020-0.065-0.1100.3540.3390.4570.456-0.2310.3320.4090.4740.4730.430-0.0130.221-0.025-0.0240.0780.6510.6560.2630.256-0.2010.3620.3310.5090.508-0.013-0.0020.2410.1400.037-0.036-0.0120.274-0.006-0.012-0.0680.4580.3950.2750.270-0.0690.5300.2780.0630.062-0.1650.3250.3030.7010.700-0.203-0.286-0.438-0.305-0.269-0.390-0.392-0.025-0.4260.2260.3900.4130.2280.2040.4310.4330.0280.403-0.0230.2800.2190.0530.0930.2880.2880.0420.2110.021-0.038-0.095-0.091-0.105-0.052-0.052-0.015-0.0920.0630.4510.4220.2030.2240.4630.467-0.0020.415-0.033-0.124-0.131-0.101-0.173-0.092-0.090-0.065-0.128-0.061-0.158-0.175-0.106-0.187-0.152-0.151-0.067-0.1720.042-0.0130.009-0.063-0.0960.0730.075-0.0450.009-0.101-0.139-0.230-0.236-0.245-0.130-0.127-0.083-0.2300.1520.2740.3190.1530.0670.3610.3630.0020.3120.1540.2980.3270.1430.0900.3820.3860.0050.3220.0230.2390.2070.0460.0550.2770.2790.0160.203-0.0630.1230.031-0.072-0.0370.1140.116-0.0200.033-0.0410.1480.1510.053-0.0030.1970.1950.0680.152-0.0900.2970.149-0.0080.1180.2180.2170.0410.149-0.0830.036-0.077-0.137-0.041-0.009-0.009-0.010-0.0830.0950.4270.4190.1910.1920.4650.4650.0670.407-0.0630.2330.1420.0260.0970.1850.1850.0220.141-0.0170.0010.058-0.021-0.032-0.011-0.010-0.012-0.022-0.018-0.0160.085-0.035-0.001-0.008-0.008-0.015-0.0230.1620.2710.2330.1120.0280.2740.2750.0190.232-0.0490.2220.123-0.0250.0650.2000.202-0.0100.117-0.0310.1430.094-0.0240.0230.1610.162-0.0020.094-0.0160.3070.2140.0150.0700.3080.3090.0160.208-0.008-0.021-0.037-0.030-0.033-0.028-0.027-0.018-0.0360.0170.0160.015-0.034-0.0350.0590.060-0.0110.013-0.018-0.022-0.044-0.028-0.026-0.042-0.042-0.015-0.0430.009-0.026-0.0030.000-0.013-0.003-0.003-0.003-0.003-0.055-0.081-0.171-0.144-0.126-0.135-0.133-0.067-0.170-0.027-0.0140.0930.1960.088-0.025-0.0290.1090.095-0.012-0.020-0.031-0.039-0.059-0.007-0.006-0.017-0.032-0.044-0.115-0.217-0.211-0.207-0.128-0.128-0.015-0.2070.0220.5100.5560.1380.3040.6870.690-0.0090.5410.011-0.275-0.250-0.112-0.173-0.267-0.2680.009-0.2460.0500.6370.6390.1940.4020.7550.7550.0720.6210.1690.2040.3960.1980.2730.3330.3330.1270.354-0.0050.0660.047-0.0370.0470.0980.099-0.0240.048-0.0350.0470.032-0.0500.0340.0870.089-0.0260.03410.2110.3760.3960.2840.2240.2220.0790.3710.21110.3330.0820.2420.4240.4230.0680.3250.3760.33310.7790.6300.8550.8510.2010.9990.3960.0820.77910.4270.3570.3530.1320.7870.2840.2420.6300.42710.4710.4620.2690.6350.2240.4240.8550.3570.47110.9990.1670.8470.2220.4230.8510.3530.4620.99910.1220.8430.0790.0680.2010.1320.2690.1670.12210.2040.3710.3250.9990.7870.6350.8470.8430.20410.2580.3640.5550.2490.2280.6510.6540.0180.525-0.0050.1130.2040.0970.0950.2430.2440.0060.2030.1240.2550.2220.0610.0590.2870.2880.0040.2150.1900.3760.3990.1320.1810.4820.4840.0350.3910.2590.4000.6030.4440.4600.5290.5280.1120.5980.113-0.0660.0420.1420.133-0.072-0.0750.0630.042-0.0090.2410.1870.0460.0690.2440.2450.0170.179-0.021-0.044-0.109-0.091-0.116-0.074-0.073-0.037-0.1060.1800.4650.5050.3140.2930.4970.4990.0360.4990.1380.4520.4900.2830.2720.5020.5050.0210.484-0.063-0.096-0.120-0.102-0.157-0.080-0.077-0.079-0.118-0.063-0.115-0.132-0.096-0.166-0.100-0.097-0.071-0.1290.0440.0490.126-0.0010.0140.1850.187-0.0200.127-0.092-0.093-0.172-0.183-0.181-0.092-0.089-0.074-0.1720.1110.2620.2680.1440.0630.2930.296-0.0160.2640.0970.2590.2550.1050.0820.2990.3010.0130.250-0.0240.0260.1310.050-0.0270.1850.1840.0430.1320.2520.4010.5920.4210.4430.5320.5300.1090.5860.127-0.0320.0980.1700.170-0.010-0.0120.0440.100-0.352-0.198-0.572-0.633-0.574-0.292-0.475-0.161-0.403-0.367-0.144-0.112-0.3530.007-0.507-0.529-0.219-0.560-0.2980.4410.1490.8380.8130.4660.2570.5340.2780.4540.4070.1800.1390.4090.1670.7140.6770.1580.4620.2540.332-0.1150.6240.6750.4430.2000.9070.4030.2620.2300.3180.2780.4590.1950.5960.5870.1030.4440.211-0.018-0.2870.6780.512-0.0910.1550.5580.928-0.165-0.2190.7040.6970.5590.5180.6290.6640.014-0.0710.1510.4130.3690.0300.1870.518-0.3410.099-0.2770.9010.936-0.363-0.4080.001-0.3530.0940.0660.1390.537-0.213-0.105-0.2570.5750.481-0.1540.1240.4160.713-0.327-0.3660.8910.8800.6620.5910.5510.6000.016-0.1300.113-0.146-0.2730.4780.409-0.2220.1380.3460.691-0.418-0.4420.8730.8870.5040.5740.4710.512-0.005-0.2030.1290.018-0.1560.6330.5100.0480.0610.4800.600-0.041-0.1030.7130.6500.8640.4850.6050.6510.0720.0740.048-0.103-0.3160.5010.165-0.474-0.1390.1900.484-0.421-0.4300.4920.5000.2670.8750.3150.303-0.197-0.449-0.1640.3550.0030.9200.9320.3510.1650.6710.5630.3200.2640.4740.4340.6180.4010.8760.8390.1570.3680.1770.3710.0610.8680.9500.4200.1080.6570.5920.3540.2950.5340.4890.6760.3800.8560.9010.2020.4530.1490.2110.1390.6780.7480.3690.0640.6660.4670.2730.2340.4870.4440.6500.2820.6800.7300.2690.4010.1080.0190.1750.3610.4960.146-0.0460.4070.3860.2910.2590.3360.2960.5200.1600.3730.5420.2710.158-0.014-0.026-0.049-0.005-0.029-0.026-0.0050.004-0.023-0.0300.005-0.018-0.019-0.025-0.048-0.0210.0650.2060.3150.4910.1870.0580.1960.1050.1740.1610.1830.1690.292-0.0080.3050.3120.2070.2100.0880.1130.4820.1630.4200.3540.0050.283-0.0600.3750.3750.021-0.0190.276-0.1860.2080.2930.3240.3730.0720.071-0.3680.1710.1930.0700.0400.2210.143-0.122-0.1360.0720.0590.1040.1490.1460.242-0.1800.0720.0140.4320.2060.5820.7680.6230.0690.6350.2570.5060.4680.2650.2210.4950.0620.6230.6620.2550.6420.1200.1140.4140.1680.3050.2830.0430.203-0.0830.3170.3230.016-0.0100.184-0.1110.1980.2210.2870.3040.1080.0180.0050.1630.0540.1120.1100.023-0.0040.0480.0400.1480.1420.192-0.0050.1600.1580.1220.1220.1160.0060.0380.0720.010-0.017-0.052-0.018-0.0230.0060.0200.0200.0220.0710.0300.1740.2550.3850.4340.2890.0730.2690.1410.2920.2820.2490.2310.3160.0460.4330.4340.2530.3090.1210.2360.1370.2440.5180.2180.0860.2490.1350.2000.1720.0510.0330.157-0.0380.2220.2210.2370.2180.0550.0610.2050.1740.2390.154-0.0380.014-0.0910.2200.2400.0660.0460.180-0.0360.2020.1820.1690.1680.0070.2300.2310.5640.7550.4150.0360.6180.3820.4070.3700.3380.2890.5750.1360.5850.6710.2960.4360.080-0.0210.0160.0390.316-0.0520.014-0.073-0.009-0.015-0.0170.0420.0390.021-0.014-0.041-0.0560.052-0.0500.0480.079-0.1730.4910.6260.0040.0340.2930.403-0.069-0.0950.4950.4860.3880.2530.3650.362-0.0050.0220.049-0.025-0.0920.2490.255-0.0480.0190.1650.223-0.084-0.0860.3240.3150.2240.1550.2370.252-0.030-0.0360.010-0.008-0.1440.2700.407-0.0310.0210.0490.145-0.024-0.0330.3130.3160.2480.0810.0880.072-0.002-0.0260.061-0.084-0.2240.2680.085-0.297-0.0050.0530.301-0.132-0.1380.4070.3850.3390.3690.1570.100-0.153-0.2850.0180.008-0.0710.1560.0960.0150.0140.1490.2350.0350.0190.2660.2540.2170.1660.2420.1760.0520.0240.0340.029-0.1440.4740.551-0.0600.0360.2540.423-0.098-0.1220.4840.4750.3740.2810.3340.2970.007-0.0410.052-0.082-0.3260.5490.207-0.450-0.2300.0660.456-0.400-0.4040.4090.4070.2810.8510.2140.248-0.329-0.423-0.2360.6360.1430.4800.5620.534-0.1870.329-0.0430.6320.635-0.039-0.0800.266-0.0010.4270.3920.0210.544-0.120-0.200-0.4090.5020.167-0.1620.4480.4820.703-0.550-0.5790.6810.6920.4340.4910.4070.443-0.111-0.1580.3790.7010.2760.5040.6460.701-0.1490.400-0.0790.8370.820-0.106-0.1450.243-0.1020.4850.4560.1250.703-0.0700.2270.3100.3730.7640.7860.2320.6030.1770.3440.3380.2240.1930.497-0.2060.4960.5700.5350.7890.2450.0000.1430.1560.2400.174-0.0540.1950.0120.2250.2370.1060.0820.238-0.0510.1790.1700.1250.199-0.014-0.0130.1450.1500.2320.162-0.0560.1870.0220.2150.2280.1090.0850.237-0.0470.1730.1640.1280.188-0.0170.258-0.0050.1240.1900.2590.113-0.009-0.0210.1800.138-0.063-0.0630.044-0.0920.1110.097-0.0240.2520.1270.3640.1130.2550.3760.400-0.0660.241-0.0440.4650.452-0.096-0.1150.049-0.0930.2620.2590.0260.401-0.0320.5550.2040.2220.3990.6030.0420.187-0.1090.5050.490-0.120-0.1320.126-0.1720.2680.2550.1310.5920.0980.2490.0970.0610.1320.4440.1420.046-0.0910.3140.283-0.102-0.096-0.001-0.1830.1440.1050.0500.4210.1700.2280.0950.0590.1810.4600.1330.069-0.1160.2930.272-0.157-0.1660.014-0.1810.0630.082-0.0270.4430.1700.6510.2430.2870.4820.529-0.0720.244-0.0740.4970.502-0.080-0.1000.185-0.0920.2930.2990.1850.532-0.0100.6540.2440.2880.4840.528-0.0750.245-0.0730.4990.505-0.077-0.0970.187-0.0890.2960.3010.1840.530-0.0120.0180.0060.0040.0350.1120.0630.017-0.0370.0360.021-0.079-0.071-0.020-0.074-0.0160.0130.0430.1090.0440.5250.2030.2150.3910.5980.0420.179-0.1060.4990.484-0.118-0.1290.127-0.1720.2640.2500.1320.5860.10010.1870.3020.4620.426-0.0230.275-0.0370.4280.429-0.103-0.1220.073-0.0760.2710.2960.0990.425-0.0110.1871-0.0810.1310.3100.065-0.118-0.2380.3690.367-0.240-0.254-0.029-0.292-0.0500.0190.6820.3030.1250.302-0.08110.8860.2250.1880.6350.5710.2100.1700.4620.4240.5540.4850.8220.7780.0510.2360.1920.4620.1310.88610.4980.1640.7440.3910.3010.2570.4330.3980.4750.0920.8670.8560.3710.5250.1490.4260.3100.2250.49810.1500.404-0.0650.6580.615-0.075-0.1070.223-0.3120.3330.3600.3260.9850.190-0.0230.0650.1880.1640.15010.1770.135-0.246-0.2790.0270.046-0.060-0.1530.1510.1230.1290.0970.8890.275-0.1180.6350.7440.4040.17710.6070.2560.2210.4750.4360.5620.2450.6900.6780.0820.4160.196-0.037-0.2380.5710.391-0.0650.1350.6071-0.105-0.1510.7380.7330.5360.4730.6450.6670.005-0.0430.1480.4280.3690.2100.3010.658-0.2460.256-0.10510.972-0.192-0.2430.207-0.2620.2870.2670.1630.683-0.1180.4290.3670.1700.2570.615-0.2790.221-0.1510.9721-0.221-0.2720.165-0.2790.2450.2220.1620.639-0.148-0.103-0.2400.4620.433-0.0750.0270.4750.738-0.192-0.22110.9910.6790.5070.5870.612-0.004-0.0430.044-0.122-0.2540.4240.398-0.1070.0460.4360.733-0.243-0.2720.99110.5920.5120.5500.572-0.016-0.0770.0610.073-0.0290.5540.4750.223-0.0600.5620.5360.2070.1650.6790.59210.2960.6530.6710.1190.266-0.031-0.076-0.2920.4850.092-0.312-0.1530.2450.473-0.262-0.2790.5070.5120.29610.3660.373-0.166-0.283-0.1460.271-0.0500.8220.8670.3330.1510.6900.6450.2870.2450.5870.5500.6530.36610.9140.1470.3580.1880.2960.0190.7780.8560.3600.1230.6780.6670.2670.2220.6120.5720.6710.3730.91410.2020.3950.1700.0990.6820.0510.3710.3260.1290.0820.0050.1630.162-0.004-0.0160.119-0.1660.1470.20210.3380.1730.4250.3030.2360.5250.9850.0970.416-0.0430.6830.639-0.043-0.0770.266-0.2830.3580.3950.33810.153-0.0110.1250.1920.1490.1900.8890.1960.148-0.118-0.1480.0440.061-0.031-0.1460.1880.1700.1730.1531total_aldehydesbmetal_crbmetal_febmetal_pbbmetal_mnbmetal_nibmetal_znbtotal_metalsbdenu_so2bhclbhno2bhno3bnh3btotalpolbtree_pollenbragweedbgrassesbtotalmolbbasidosporesbascosporesbmitosporesbdark_mitobnon_dark_mitobsmall_sporesblarge_sporesbparttotbfrm2_5bfrm10btemp_avebrh_avebmax_250bmax_sootbmax_o3bmax_8hrbmax_noxbmax_nobmax_no2bmax_so2bmax_pm2_5bmax_pm10bmax_parttotbtemp_maxbrh_maxb0.1410.0870.2660.0930.3290.3190.1940.2710.410-0.1751-0.3030.188-0.106-0.1040.011-0.275-0.250-0.112-0.173-0.267-0.2680.009-0.246-0.200-0.4090.5020.167-0.1620.4480.4820.703-0.550-0.5790.6810.6920.4340.4910.4070.443-0.111-0.1580.3790.537-0.0410.033-0.0520.025-0.095-0.052-0.023-0.0470.821-0.30310.4130.2090.2040.0500.6370.6390.1940.4020.7550.7550.0720.6210.7010.2760.5040.6460.701-0.1490.400-0.0790.8370.820-0.106-0.1450.243-0.1020.4850.4560.1250.703-0.0700.6860.0950.127-0.0290.160-0.2020.0050.069-0.3640.3150.1880.41310.3570.3240.1690.2040.3960.1980.2730.3330.3330.1270.3540.2270.3100.3730.7640.7860.2320.6030.1770.3440.3380.2240.1930.497-0.2060.4960.5700.5350.7890.2450.315-0.011-0.060-0.019-0.002-0.034-0.025-0.062-0.0250.228-0.1060.2090.35710.999-0.0050.0660.047-0.0370.0470.0980.099-0.0240.0480.0000.1430.1560.2400.174-0.0540.1950.0120.2250.2370.1060.0820.238-0.0510.1790.1700.1250.199-0.0140.312-0.010-0.061-0.018-0.002-0.031-0.023-0.061-0.0210.224-0.1040.2040.3240.9991-0.0350.0470.032-0.0500.0340.0870.089-0.0260.034-0.0130.1450.1500.2320.162-0.0560.1870.0220.2150.2280.1090.0850.237-0.0470.1730.1640.1280.188-0.017Appendix 5 - Correlation Matrix (continued)Manhattanphmsulfatemcarb250msootmo3mnoxmnomno2mso2mpm2_5_30mpm10_30macetaldemacetonemacroleinmbenzaldembutyraldmcrotonalmformaldemhexaldehmisovalermm_tolualmo_tolualmp_tolualmpropionamvaleraldm_2_5_dimmtotal_aldehydesmmetal_crmmetal_femmetal_pbmmetal_mnmmetal_nimmetal_znmtotal_metalsmdenu_so2mhclmhno2mhno3mnh3mtotalpolmtree_pollenmragweedmgrassesmtotalmolmbasidosporesmascosporesmmitosporesmdark_mitomnon_dark_mitomsmall_sporesmlarge_sporesmparttotmfrm2_5mfrm10mtemp_avemrh_avemmax_250mmax_sootmmax_o3mmax_8hrmmax_noxmmax_nommax_no2mmax_so2mmax_pm2_5mmax_pm10mmax_parttotmtemp_maxmrh_maxmphmsulfatemcarb250sootmo3mnoxmnomno2mso2mpm2_5_pm10_3acetaldeacetoneacroleinbenzaldbutyraldcrotonalformaldehexaldeisovalerm_toluao_tolualp_tolualpropionavalerald_2_5_ditotal_aldmetal_cmetal_femetal_pmetal_mmetal_nmetal_ztotal_medenu_sohclm1-0.707-0.671-0.295-0.4880.0420.124-0.2470.181-0.627-0.585-0.432-0.124-0.053-0.0700.066-0.143-0.591-0.109-0.113-0.036-0.224-0.234-0.062-0.3500.056-0.1460.007-0.1210.186-0.046-0.0770.097-0.660-0.70710.6420.4210.4210.100-0.0100.4100.0780.8800.7740.4840.119-0.0330.0040.0050.0900.6170.1000.151-0.0130.2760.211-0.0280.340-0.0290.2440.0420.136-0.0180.0570.1820.1390.694-0.6710.64210.6140.2770.3040.2200.4520.0470.7280.7160.5760.227-0.0130.019-0.0890.1220.6690.0800.112-0.0110.3290.149-0.0100.416-0.0250.3270.0980.183-0.0820.0670.2460.0760.569-0.2950.4210.6141-0.0570.7580.6690.7200.5040.6510.6420.5750.473-0.033-0.0030.1370.2160.5020.0360.074-0.0250.2320.112-0.0500.449-0.0460.5060.2550.1770.2510.1940.4910.4470.339-0.4880.4210.277-0.0571-0.486-0.5860.026-0.4040.2670.2470.1260.0860.0100.0360.081-0.0690.4260.0510.0650.0250.1930.2250.0360.209-0.0380.007-0.097-0.091-0.235-0.019-0.058-0.3300.6700.0420.1000.3040.758-0.48610.9700.6730.7670.3970.4370.4030.361-0.061-0.0510.0090.1670.173-0.058-0.027-0.0400.112-0.088-0.0800.2330.0020.4520.2800.2100.4280.2070.5120.729-0.0860.124-0.0100.2200.669-0.5860.97010.4740.7570.2670.3000.2960.268-0.046-0.052-0.0410.1650.054-0.068-0.055-0.0410.043-0.124-0.0650.1380.0180.3840.2810.1990.4250.2110.4650.707-0.227-0.2470.4100.4520.7200.0260.6730.47410.4730.6360.6820.5720.499-0.080-0.0230.1440.1120.4730.0010.071-0.0190.2820.063-0.0880.432-0.0490.4740.1620.1640.2490.1110.4380.4720.4090.1810.0780.0470.504-0.4040.7670.7570.47310.2550.2400.1800.049-0.096-0.119-0.0040.012-0.004-0.119-0.077-0.0460.002-0.122-0.1030.0000.0360.2640.1700.1010.5550.1450.3720.943-0.049-0.6270.8800.7280.6510.2670.3970.2670.6360.25510.9070.6070.200-0.044-0.0110.0250.1350.6540.0680.120-0.0090.2890.192-0.0430.404-0.0180.4030.1330.2070.0710.1080.3430.2890.613-0.5850.7740.7160.6420.2470.4370.3000.6820.2400.90710.5920.223-0.064-0.0220.0200.1140.6250.0450.108-0.0330.3630.153-0.0600.396-0.0190.4370.2050.2600.0700.1560.3820.3470.588-0.4320.4840.5760.5750.1260.4030.2960.5720.1800.6070.59210.3440.3170.5360.3360.5990.8270.6030.5130.0160.3020.2140.3060.811-0.0390.3380.1730.122-0.0080.0610.2670.1660.412-0.1240.1190.2270.4730.0860.3610.2680.4990.0490.2000.2230.3441-0.1140.0970.0880.2350.3010.1480.217-0.0230.1000.126-0.1030.708-0.0200.2000.1030.039-0.0160.0780.1670.0810.307-0.053-0.033-0.013-0.0330.010-0.061-0.046-0.080-0.096-0.044-0.0640.317-0.11410.6400.1770.3900.2820.444-0.013-0.006-0.0210.0950.8730.335-0.0100.043-0.020-0.027-0.066-0.0130.006-0.1100.035-0.0700.0040.019-0.0030.036-0.051-0.052-0.023-0.119-0.011-0.0220.5360.0970.64010.3080.6510.4070.8080.559-0.0080.1150.1710.6170.590-0.0130.028-0.010-0.024-0.092-0.018-0.016-0.1370.0610.0660.005-0.0890.1370.0810.009-0.0410.144-0.0040.0250.0200.3360.0880.1770.30810.2420.2900.3490.2880.012-0.0080.1180.1760.375-0.0340.061-0.010-0.040-0.031-0.0350.021-0.0380.116-0.1430.0900.1220.216-0.0690.1670.1650.1120.0120.1350.1140.5990.2350.3900.6510.24210.4170.7530.6220.1520.0410.2930.3770.666-0.0250.1210.0530.010-0.0560.0520.0810.1070.039-0.5910.6170.6690.5020.4260.1730.0540.473-0.0040.6540.6250.8270.3010.2820.4070.2900.41710.4090.3150.0110.3010.3590.2890.752-0.0370.3120.1160.097-0.1420.0530.2120.0030.730-0.1090.1000.0800.0360.051-0.058-0.0680.001-0.1190.0680.0450.6030.1480.4440.8080.3490.7530.40910.855-0.0030.1280.2070.4400.653-0.014-0.001-0.027-0.026-0.098-0.018-0.044-0.1330.067-0.1130.1510.1120.0740.065-0.027-0.0550.071-0.0770.1200.1080.5130.217-0.0130.5590.2880.6220.3150.85510.0650.2180.170-0.0100.549-0.012-0.025-0.019-0.022-0.077-0.015-0.054-0.0810.089-0.036-0.013-0.011-0.0250.025-0.040-0.041-0.019-0.046-0.009-0.0330.016-0.023-0.006-0.0080.0120.1520.011-0.0030.0651-0.0120.005-0.0060.0190.0700.007-0.010-0.013-0.017-0.0060.007-0.0610.028-0.2240.2760.3290.2320.1930.1120.0430.2820.0020.2890.3630.3020.100-0.0210.115-0.0080.0410.3010.1280.218-0.01210.019-0.0230.242-0.0200.0590.0590.088-0.045-0.0090.0190.0050.265-0.2340.2110.1490.1120.225-0.088-0.1240.063-0.1220.1920.1530.2140.1260.0950.1710.1180.2930.3590.2070.1700.0050.01910.1160.403-0.0140.084-0.005-0.033-0.1030.0430.044-0.1080.354-0.062-0.028-0.010-0.0500.036-0.080-0.065-0.088-0.103-0.043-0.0600.306-0.1030.8730.6170.1760.3770.2890.440-0.010-0.006-0.0230.11610.330-0.0100.032-0.028-0.030-0.068-0.014-0.005-0.1090.055-0.3500.3400.4160.4490.2090.2330.1380.4320.0000.4040.3960.8110.7080.3350.5900.3750.6660.7520.6530.5490.0190.2420.4030.3301-0.0380.2560.1080.055-0.0920.0640.1790.0110.4210.056-0.029-0.025-0.046-0.0380.0020.018-0.0490.036-0.018-0.019-0.039-0.020-0.010-0.013-0.034-0.025-0.037-0.014-0.0120.070-0.020-0.014-0.010-0.03810.056-0.0200.1550.072-0.0120.0810.007-0.010-0.1460.2440.3270.5060.0070.4520.3840.4740.2640.4030.4370.3380.2000.0430.0280.0610.1210.312-0.001-0.0250.0070.0590.0840.0320.2560.05610.2880.3450.3560.1660.9360.2500.2460.0070.0420.0980.255-0.0970.2800.2810.1620.1700.1330.2050.1730.103-0.020-0.010-0.0100.0530.116-0.027-0.019-0.0100.059-0.005-0.0280.108-0.0200.28810.2730.2110.1880.3690.173-0.034-0.1210.1360.1830.177-0.0910.2100.1990.1640.1010.2070.2600.1220.039-0.027-0.024-0.0400.0100.097-0.026-0.022-0.0130.088-0.033-0.0300.0550.1550.3450.27310.1940.1660.3720.1930.0440.186-0.018-0.0820.251-0.2350.4280.4250.2490.5550.0710.070-0.008-0.016-0.066-0.092-0.031-0.056-0.142-0.098-0.077-0.017-0.045-0.103-0.068-0.0920.0720.3560.2110.19410.1550.5600.564-0.141-0.0460.0570.0670.194-0.0190.2070.2110.1110.1450.1080.1560.0610.078-0.013-0.018-0.0350.0520.053-0.018-0.015-0.006-0.0090.043-0.0140.064-0.0120.1660.1880.1660.15510.3930.1270.043-0.0770.1820.2460.491-0.0580.5120.4650.4380.3720.3430.3820.2670.1670.006-0.0160.0210.0810.212-0.044-0.0540.0070.0190.044-0.0050.1790.0810.9360.3690.3720.5600.39310.3670.1460.0970.1390.0760.447-0.3300.7290.7070.4720.9430.2890.3470.1660.081-0.110-0.137-0.0380.1070.003-0.133-0.081-0.0610.005-0.108-0.1090.0110.0070.2500.1730.1930.5640.1270.36710.041-0.6600.6940.5690.3390.670-0.086-0.2270.409-0.0490.6130.5880.4120.3070.0350.0610.1160.0390.7300.0670.0890.0280.2650.3540.0550.421-0.0100.246-0.0340.044-0.1410.0430.1460.04110.0340.0190.2760.468-0.5880.6610.6780.3090.4030.2320.2270.2480.124-0.008-0.031-0.0490.240-0.026-0.0140.000-0.012-0.019-0.139-0.0340.087-0.0030.2420.1770.2460.1660.0680.2930.376-0.323-0.6690.7040.5110.3420.734-0.120-0.2490.354-0.0050.5880.5320.3170.258-0.028-0.0080.080-0.0270.6450.0130.046-0.0020.1760.285-0.0060.325-0.0050.197-0.0350.008-0.0570.0330.1140.0640.856-0.5270.3230.7370.4270.2720.077-0.0450.404-0.2780.4590.4730.5160.4520.0550.309-0.1330.0880.5730.4780.2730.0090.4040.1870.577-0.0490.3400.0350.252-0.319-0.0010.193-0.2370.392-0.1350.1320.2090.1230.1200.053-0.0010.196-0.0330.1690.2150.1630.089-0.0120.001-0.011-0.0250.1570.0180.068-0.0080.3900.0560.0000.138-0.014-0.068-0.021-0.026-0.054-0.012-0.0850.0060.177-0.1250.1210.2030.1240.1130.0580.0060.195-0.0270.1610.2080.1540.087-0.014-0.009-0.015-0.0340.1460.0040.054-0.0080.3840.051-0.0020.128-0.013-0.070-0.019-0.027-0.049-0.011-0.0840.0090.167-0.1930.2100.083-0.0610.116-0.131-0.144-0.033-0.1390.1460.1480.1930.0540.0400.2000.0910.2680.2140.3640.382-0.0020.0460.0760.0370.226-0.0020.012-0.0330.011-0.121-0.016-0.037-0.0810.178-0.2970.3470.2570.0570.314-0.151-0.2000.068-0.1320.2190.2150.1290.001-0.0090.1000.0420.0580.3070.1540.1910.0080.3020.1670.0220.160-0.0210.055-0.0550.063-0.128-0.028-0.006-0.1000.521-0.4630.4130.3630.0360.443-0.242-0.3000.049-0.2700.3130.2920.2510.0560.0260.104-0.0320.1100.4970.1700.1850.0730.1270.2370.0360.2600.0030.070-0.0250.059-0.259-0.023-0.023-0.2100.581-0.3180.1630.200-0.1250.222-0.254-0.266-0.100-0.3370.0910.1120.1340.0230.0510.122-0.0540.1140.2810.1970.1840.0330.0550.1120.0490.1660.010-0.020-0.0200.100-0.238-0.035-0.075-0.3030.202-0.2640.1880.199-0.0480.231-0.239-0.257-0.074-0.2710.1430.1370.0660.012-0.0130.008-0.0020.0050.1780.1010.1080.0370.0370.2360.0450.115-0.0060.021-0.0410.039-0.188-0.027-0.043-0.2360.202-0.4350.4640.3670.1320.462-0.165-0.2370.134-0.1490.3570.3250.2700.0630.0090.076-0.0120.0890.5200.1130.1400.0790.1460.2380.0160.2570.0000.106-0.0170.018-0.198-0.0080.013-0.1070.658-0.4370.4670.3670.1340.464-0.164-0.2370.135-0.1460.3580.3270.2690.0640.0090.077-0.0100.0900.5200.1130.1420.0800.1490.2400.0160.2580.0000.106-0.0170.016-0.196-0.0070.014-0.1050.660-0.0750.0630.071-0.0160.061-0.062-0.0790.019-0.0940.0690.0250.0700.0040.010-0.003-0.052-0.0020.1230.008-0.004-0.012-0.0240.0200.0120.0340.0060.017-0.0090.039-0.088-0.028-0.013-0.0600.113-0.4620.4040.3590.0310.440-0.245-0.3020.044-0.2770.3040.2870.2460.0540.0280.104-0.0330.1080.4910.1690.1820.0760.1280.2360.0380.2570.0040.068-0.0270.058-0.262-0.023-0.026-0.2190.575-0.3440.4420.2940.1050.343-0.118-0.1760.114-0.0640.3500.2810.2530.054-0.0150.0740.0150.1000.4400.1350.169-0.0030.0930.167-0.0050.225-0.0100.0800.0220.034-0.106-0.0060.021-0.0240.5210.080-0.0030.0850.014-0.0260.1120.1310.0040.182-0.0300.005-0.057-0.0040.0130.182-0.131-0.0820.0060.003-0.0720.049-0.015-0.023-0.042-0.005-0.0020.0520.0720.1150.0270.0320.451-0.006-0.4670.7050.6070.6800.0500.5490.4600.5980.4570.8010.7370.5210.179-0.057-0.0220.0000.1260.4700.0490.1090.0300.3270.079-0.0640.3210.0220.3610.1810.1960.1530.1080.3410.5110.418-0.6670.7510.7410.7020.1790.4280.3060.5980.2210.8270.8320.5970.429-0.069-0.0840.0540.1800.5880.2210.285-0.0060.5400.194-0.0870.5030.0570.5150.2600.3650.046-0.0780.4180.2510.540-0.6570.4790.5670.0670.614-0.301-0.3820.089-0.5570.4050.4110.3340.1440.0630.1100.0270.1150.6050.1390.1420.0610.2150.3000.0760.374-0.0340.079-0.0430.103-0.438-0.035-0.041-0.4030.634-0.2100.1740.1890.000-0.287-0.0330.021-0.180-0.2030.1230.0130.013-0.0770.0340.064-0.1070.077-0.0310.0880.0770.0210.0190.0380.033-0.013-0.032-0.1340.0450.081-0.054-0.019-0.097-0.259-0.244-0.5550.5330.9010.6490.1940.3750.3010.4590.1130.6400.6370.5550.213-0.0040.021-0.0580.1570.5990.0690.090-0.0160.2620.159-0.0100.392-0.0350.3510.1240.164-0.0250.0880.2820.1040.456-0.2540.3500.5420.934-0.0390.6750.6010.6260.3960.5500.5370.5200.437-0.0070.0210.1240.2270.4480.0560.078-0.0160.1800.122-0.0280.420-0.0510.4580.2270.1490.2130.2050.4460.3310.283-0.5840.5330.4210.0770.921-0.358-0.4920.204-0.3400.4320.4050.2650.1370.0130.0470.080-0.0160.5560.0860.1020.0060.2120.2590.0260.303-0.0380.099-0.094-0.050-0.225-0.0090.012-0.2500.780-0.5410.4830.3820.0460.947-0.381-0.5050.164-0.3490.3860.3610.2320.1300.0210.0520.073-0.0320.5150.0740.0830.0100.2220.2380.0480.280-0.0310.072-0.097-0.065-0.2220.008-0.004-0.2510.747-0.0150.1100.3500.755-0.3460.8920.8540.6340.5820.3870.4270.4220.376-0.007-0.0070.0640.1980.241-0.019-0.015-0.0190.096-0.035-0.0280.2880.0040.4500.2420.1910.3170.2060.4710.570-0.0170.0320.0430.3010.710-0.4280.8870.8790.5440.5860.3220.3600.3650.330-0.004-0.0170.0320.1920.174-0.033-0.036-0.0140.064-0.068-0.0270.2330.0180.4190.2440.1950.3180.2000.4490.568-0.105-0.3790.4800.5330.6390.3030.4640.2760.8490.2250.6310.6690.6000.477-0.0510.0120.1640.1300.5910.0460.1100.0080.3030.193-0.0500.492-0.0410.4370.1550.1530.1050.1250.3880.2460.5610.0770.1080.1510.505-0.2890.7090.6810.4970.8510.2750.2830.2270.100-0.093-0.1170.0050.0210.098-0.109-0.0710.0110.002-0.079-0.1040.0670.0320.2940.1610.1340.4360.1720.3720.8300.041-0.6150.7900.7500.6720.2820.3890.2740.5870.1790.8980.8410.6040.215-0.0330.0210.0120.1730.6740.0880.1300.0250.2620.210-0.0410.425-0.0240.4110.1570.2290.0420.1420.3540.2260.590-0.4210.5110.5430.5260.1450.3750.2780.5230.1640.6580.8130.4360.175-0.051-0.0140.0110.1130.4420.0420.087-0.0230.2680.102-0.0560.297-0.0110.3610.1760.2180.0630.1720.3290.3060.452-0.0340.0420.1360.041-0.1060.0950.114-0.0070.0640.0760.1400.0200.1210.0880.063-0.0580.0530.028-0.023-0.020-0.0100.006-0.0360.064-0.030-0.0040.1460.066-0.0600.000-0.0020.139-0.023-0.6470.4800.5730.0930.625-0.275-0.3640.132-0.5250.4150.4360.3530.1560.0590.1010.0400.1080.6200.1290.1310.0520.2210.2930.0710.384-0.0350.105-0.0440.109-0.437-0.026-0.017-0.3710.649-0.1930.1630.2090.058-0.205-0.0180.018-0.117-0.2030.1140.0230.038-0.0530.0390.057-0.0680.051-0.0070.0720.0590.0180.0380.0120.0350.004-0.017-0.1190.0530.089-0.051-0.011-0.087-0.278-0.199Appendix 5 - Correlation Matrix (continued)Manhattanhno2mhno3mnh3mtotalpolmtree_polragweedgrassestotalmolbasidosascospomitospodark_minon_darsmall_splarge_spparttotmfrm2_5mfrm10mtemp_avrh_avemmax_25max_somax_o3max_8hmax_nomax_nomax_nomax_somax_pmmax_pmmax_patemp_mrh_maxmphm0.034-0.669-0.527-0.135-0.125-0.193-0.297-0.463-0.318-0.264-0.435-0.437-0.075-0.462-0.3440.080-0.467-0.667-0.657-0.210-0.555-0.254-0.584-0.541-0.0150.032-0.3790.077-0.615-0.421-0.034-0.647-0.193sulfatem0.0190.7040.3230.1320.1210.2100.3470.4130.1630.1880.4640.4670.0630.4040.442-0.0030.7050.7510.4790.1740.5330.3500.5330.4830.1100.0430.4800.1080.7900.5110.0420.4800.163carb250m0.2760.5110.7370.2090.2030.0830.2570.3630.2000.1990.3670.3670.0710.3590.2940.0850.6070.7410.5670.1890.9010.5420.4210.3820.3500.3010.5330.1510.7500.5430.1360.5730.209sootm0.4680.3420.4270.1230.124-0.0610.0570.036-0.125-0.0480.1320.134-0.0160.0310.1050.0140.6800.7020.0670.0000.6490.9340.0770.0460.7550.7100.6390.5050.6720.5260.0410.0930.058o3m-0.5880.7340.2720.1200.1130.1160.3140.4430.2220.2310.4620.4640.0610.4400.343-0.0260.0500.1790.614-0.2870.194-0.0390.9210.947-0.346-0.4280.303-0.2890.2820.145-0.1060.625-0.205noxm0.661-0.1200.0770.0530.058-0.131-0.151-0.242-0.254-0.239-0.165-0.164-0.062-0.245-0.1180.1120.5490.428-0.301-0.0330.3750.675-0.358-0.3810.8920.8870.4640.7090.3890.3750.095-0.275-0.018nom0.678-0.249-0.045-0.0010.006-0.144-0.200-0.300-0.266-0.257-0.237-0.237-0.079-0.302-0.1760.1310.4600.306-0.3820.0210.3010.601-0.492-0.5050.8540.8790.2760.6810.2740.2780.114-0.3640.018no2m0.3090.3540.4040.1960.195-0.0330.0680.049-0.100-0.0740.1340.1350.0190.0440.1140.0040.5980.5980.089-0.1800.4590.6260.2040.1640.6340.5440.8490.4970.5870.523-0.0070.132-0.117so2m0.403-0.005-0.278-0.033-0.027-0.139-0.132-0.270-0.337-0.271-0.149-0.146-0.094-0.277-0.0640.1820.4570.221-0.557-0.2030.1130.396-0.340-0.3490.5820.5860.2250.8510.1790.1640.064-0.525-0.203pm2_5_30m0.2320.5880.4590.1690.1610.1460.2190.3130.0910.1430.3570.3580.0690.3040.350-0.0300.8010.8270.4050.1230.6400.5500.4320.3860.3870.3220.6310.2750.8980.6580.0760.4150.114pm10_30m0.2270.5320.4730.2150.2080.1480.2150.2920.1120.1370.3250.3270.0250.2870.2810.0050.7370.8320.4110.0130.6370.5370.4050.3610.4270.3600.6690.2830.8410.8130.1400.4360.023acetaldem0.2480.3170.5160.1630.1540.1930.1290.2510.1340.0660.2700.2690.0700.2460.253-0.0570.5210.5970.3340.0130.5550.5200.2650.2320.4220.3650.6000.2270.6040.4360.0200.3530.038acetonem0.1240.2580.4520.0890.0870.0540.0010.0560.0230.0120.0630.0640.0040.0540.054-0.0040.1790.4290.144-0.0770.2130.4370.1370.1300.3760.3300.4770.1000.2150.1750.1210.156-0.053acroleinm-0.008-0.0280.055-0.012-0.0140.040-0.0090.0260.051-0.0130.0090.0090.0100.028-0.015-0.057-0.0690.0630.034-0.004-0.0070.0130.021-0.007-0.004-0.051-0.093-0.033-0.0510.0590.039benzaldem-0.031-0.0080.3090.001-0.0090.2000.1000.1040.1220.0080.0760.077-0.0030.1040.0740.013-0.022-0.0840.1100.0640.0210.0210.0470.052-0.007-0.0170.012-0.1170.021-0.0140.0880.1010.057butyraldm-0.0490.080-0.133-0.011-0.0150.0910.042-0.032-0.054-0.002-0.012-0.010-0.052-0.0330.0150.1820.0000.0540.027-0.107-0.0580.1240.0800.0730.0640.0320.1640.0050.0120.0110.0630.040-0.068crotonalm0.240-0.0270.088-0.025-0.0340.2680.0580.1100.1140.0050.0890.090-0.0020.1080.100-0.1310.1260.1800.1150.0770.1570.227-0.016-0.0320.1980.1920.1300.0210.1730.113-0.0580.1080.051formaldem-0.0260.6450.5730.1570.1460.2140.3070.4970.2810.1780.5200.5200.1230.4910.440-0.0820.4700.5880.605-0.0310.5990.4480.5560.5150.2410.1740.5910.0980.6740.4420.0530.620-0.007hexaldehm-0.0140.0130.4780.0180.0040.3640.1540.1700.1970.1010.1130.1130.0080.1690.1350.0060.0490.2210.1390.0880.0690.0560.0860.074-0.019-0.0330.046-0.1090.0880.0420.0280.1290.072isovalerm0.0000.0460.2730.0680.0540.3820.1910.1850.1840.1080.1400.142-0.0040.1820.1690.0030.1090.2850.1420.0770.0900.0780.1020.083-0.015-0.0360.110-0.0710.1300.087-0.0230.1310.059m_tolualmo_tolualm-0.012-0.0020.009-0.008-0.008-0.0020.0080.0730.0330.0370.0790.080-0.0120.076-0.003-0.0720.030-0.0060.0610.021-0.016-0.0160.0060.010-0.019-0.0140.0080.0110.025-0.023-0.0200.0520.018p_tolualm-0.0190.1760.4040.3900.3840.0460.3020.1270.0550.0370.1460.149-0.0240.1280.0930.0490.3270.5400.2150.0190.2620.1800.2120.2220.0960.0640.3030.0020.2620.268-0.0100.2210.038propionam-0.1390.2850.1870.0560.0510.0760.1670.2370.1120.2360.2380.2400.0200.2360.167-0.0150.0790.1940.3000.0380.1590.1220.2590.238-0.035-0.0680.193-0.0790.2100.1020.0060.2930.012valeraldm-0.034-0.0060.000-0.0020.0370.0220.0360.0490.0450.0160.0160.0120.038-0.005-0.023-0.064-0.0870.0760.033-0.010-0.0280.0260.048-0.028-0.027-0.050-0.104-0.041-0.056-0.0360.0710.035_2_5_dimmtotal_aldehydesm0.0870.3250.5770.1380.1280.2260.1600.2600.1660.1150.2570.2580.0340.2570.225-0.0420.3210.5030.374-0.0130.3920.4200.3030.2800.2880.2330.4920.0670.4250.2970.0640.3840.004metal_crm-0.003-0.005-0.049-0.014-0.013-0.002-0.0210.0030.010-0.0060.0000.0000.0060.004-0.010-0.0050.0220.057-0.034-0.032-0.035-0.051-0.038-0.0310.0040.018-0.0410.032-0.024-0.011-0.030-0.035-0.017metal_fem0.2420.1970.340-0.068-0.0700.0120.0550.070-0.0200.0210.1060.1060.0170.0680.080-0.0020.3610.5150.079-0.1340.3510.4580.0990.0720.4500.4190.4370.2940.4110.361-0.0040.105-0.119metal_pbm0.177-0.0350.035-0.021-0.019-0.033-0.055-0.025-0.020-0.041-0.017-0.017-0.009-0.0270.0220.0520.1810.260-0.0430.0450.1240.227-0.094-0.0970.2420.2440.1550.1610.1570.1760.146-0.0440.053metal_mnm0.2460.0080.252-0.026-0.0270.0110.0630.0590.1000.0390.0180.0160.0390.0580.0340.0720.1960.3650.1030.0810.1640.149-0.050-0.0650.1910.1950.1530.1340.2290.2180.0660.1090.089metal_nim0.166-0.057-0.319-0.054-0.049-0.121-0.128-0.259-0.238-0.188-0.198-0.196-0.088-0.262-0.1060.1150.1530.046-0.438-0.054-0.0250.213-0.225-0.2220.3170.3180.1050.4360.0420.063-0.060-0.437-0.051metal_znm0.0680.033-0.001-0.012-0.011-0.016-0.028-0.023-0.035-0.027-0.008-0.007-0.028-0.023-0.0060.0270.108-0.078-0.035-0.0190.0880.205-0.0090.0080.2060.2000.1250.1720.1420.1720.000-0.026-0.011total_metalsm0.2930.1140.193-0.085-0.084-0.037-0.006-0.023-0.075-0.0430.0130.014-0.013-0.0260.0210.0320.3410.418-0.041-0.0970.2820.4460.012-0.0040.4710.4490.3880.3720.3540.329-0.002-0.017-0.087denu_so2m0.3760.064-0.2370.0060.009-0.081-0.100-0.210-0.303-0.236-0.107-0.105-0.060-0.219-0.0240.4510.5110.251-0.403-0.2590.1040.331-0.250-0.2510.5700.5680.2460.8300.2260.3060.139-0.371-0.278hclm-0.3230.8560.3920.1770.1670.1780.5210.5810.2020.2020.6580.6600.1130.5750.521-0.0060.4180.5400.634-0.2440.4560.2830.7800.747-0.017-0.1050.5610.0410.5900.452-0.0230.649-0.199hno2m1-0.4010.327-0.057-0.052-0.106-0.300-0.357-0.235-0.198-0.340-0.341-0.066-0.360-0.232-0.0120.3790.034-0.2450.4350.2980.430-0.491-0.5180.6010.6240.1300.3940.2310.2740.069-0.2360.364hno3m-0.40110.2160.0920.0850.1080.4240.5300.2030.2070.5880.5900.0890.5220.4910.1210.3960.4260.578-0.2550.4160.3090.8230.787-0.068-0.1530.4970.0530.5510.3820.0030.584-0.212nh3m0.3270.21610.2920.2900.0770.2620.2510.1810.2580.2390.2380.1500.2530.151-0.3370.3050.5060.6480.0720.6610.3990.3730.3460.2090.1470.543-0.1070.5130.4570.0030.6650.095totalpolm-0.0570.0920.29210.999-0.0080.0560.007-0.0270.0460.0180.019-0.0090.007-0.0100.0010.0980.1910.153-0.0600.1930.1180.1710.1770.0770.0510.214-0.0210.1420.130-0.0720.173-0.036tree_pollenm-0.0520.0850.2900.9991-0.0340.034-0.009-0.0390.0360.0050.005-0.011-0.008-0.0230.0020.0930.1810.142-0.0620.1890.1200.1610.1680.0820.0560.210-0.0160.1340.125-0.0710.161-0.038ragweedm-0.1060.1080.077-0.008-0.03410.1930.4000.3570.1700.3370.3400.0280.3950.381-0.1670.1130.3390.2570.1120.040-0.0530.1510.134-0.103-0.1200.052-0.0770.1630.116-0.1100.2460.098grassesm-0.3000.4240.2620.0560.0340.19310.3630.1350.2810.3940.3950.0700.3620.265-0.0080.1290.3380.3850.0100.1810.0260.3620.358-0.126-0.1590.151-0.0970.2670.161-0.0100.3880.009totalmolm-0.3570.5300.2510.007-0.0090.4000.36310.7450.5290.9070.9030.3100.9990.690-0.1190.1420.5030.6210.0060.2590.0070.4880.481-0.170-0.2080.232-0.1800.3760.2060.0100.6180.049basidosporesm-0.2350.2030.181-0.027-0.0390.3570.1350.74510.4730.4080.4000.2670.7580.255-0.100-0.0020.2570.4760.1350.110-0.1220.2620.246-0.185-0.1940.065-0.2240.1800.0940.0450.4610.156ascosporesm-0.1980.2070.2580.0460.0360.1700.2810.5290.47310.3260.3250.1020.5350.1950.0330.0240.3160.4330.0920.122-0.0600.2750.257-0.210-0.2220.060-0.2210.1920.0820.0970.4230.141mitosporesm-0.3400.5880.2390.0180.0050.3370.3940.9070.4080.32610.9990.2690.8970.802-0.1100.1980.5050.539-0.0860.2850.0910.4960.498-0.106-0.1540.281-0.0930.3890.223-0.0390.544-0.043dark_mitom-0.3410.5900.2380.0190.0050.3400.3950.9030.4000.3250.99910.2260.8930.805-0.1010.2020.5050.538-0.0860.2850.0920.4990.500-0.106-0.1540.283-0.0920.3900.221-0.0270.543-0.042non_dark_mitom-0.0660.0890.150-0.009-0.0110.0280.0700.3100.2670.1020.2690.22610.3120.138-0.120-0.0350.2110.160-0.0350.043-0.0110.0740.072-0.030-0.0420.025-0.0510.0940.095-0.1310.165-0.028small_sporesm-0.3600.5220.2530.007-0.0080.3950.3620.9990.7580.5350.8970.8930.31210.661-0.1180.1370.5010.6220.0070.2560.0030.4850.478-0.171-0.2090.230-0.1840.3700.2040.0120.6180.052large_sporesm-0.2320.4910.151-0.010-0.0230.3810.2650.6900.2550.1950.8020.8050.1380.6611-0.0640.1800.3790.404-0.0280.2220.0630.3770.371-0.093-0.1340.205-0.0420.3420.183-0.0280.405-0.013parttotm-0.0120.121-0.3370.0010.002-0.167-0.008-0.119-0.1000.033-0.110-0.101-0.120-0.118-0.06410.0110.140-0.084-0.0510.044-0.018-0.046-0.0240.0660.071-0.0070.129-0.031-0.0230.637-0.081-0.045frm2_5m0.3790.3960.3050.0980.0930.1130.1290.142-0.0020.0240.1980.202-0.0350.1370.1800.01110.7910.1680.1790.5510.5810.1710.1350.4560.4170.5330.4210.7240.5270.0360.1820.182frm10m0.0340.4260.5060.1910.1810.3390.3380.5030.2570.3160.5050.5050.2110.5010.3790.1400.79110.4830.1350.7070.6070.2720.2470.3600.2820.6170.2120.7670.7510.0680.5030.158temp_avem-0.2450.5780.6480.1530.1420.2570.3850.6210.4760.4330.5390.5380.1600.6220.404-0.0840.1680.48310.1000.4130.0620.6830.653-0.167-0.2170.323-0.3450.4590.3100.0810.9870.111rh_avem0.435-0.2550.072-0.060-0.0620.1120.0100.0060.1350.092-0.086-0.086-0.0350.007-0.028-0.0510.1790.1350.10010.1200.007-0.222-0.249-0.050-0.014-0.185-0.2230.1280.0360.0270.0490.892max_250m0.2980.4160.6610.1930.1890.0400.1810.2590.1100.1220.2850.2850.0430.2560.2220.0440.5510.7070.4130.12010.6440.3200.2890.4360.3860.5520.1910.7140.5160.0860.4350.158max_sootm0.4300.3090.3990.1180.120-0.0530.0260.007-0.122-0.0600.0910.092-0.0110.0030.063-0.0180.5810.6070.0620.0070.64410.0830.0530.7630.7220.6080.4410.6360.4890.0320.0870.070max_o3m-0.4910.8230.3730.1710.1610.1510.3620.4880.2620.2750.4960.4990.0740.4850.377-0.0460.1710.2720.683-0.2220.3200.08310.977-0.210-0.3000.462-0.2020.4350.263-0.0800.699-0.149max_8hrm-0.5180.7870.3460.1770.1680.1340.3580.4810.2460.2570.4980.5000.0720.4780.371-0.0240.1350.2470.653-0.2490.2890.0530.9771-0.232-0.3210.430-0.2170.4020.234-0.0880.667-0.171max_noxm0.601-0.0680.2090.0770.082-0.103-0.126-0.170-0.185-0.210-0.106-0.106-0.030-0.171-0.0930.0660.4560.360-0.167-0.0500.4360.763-0.210-0.23210.9880.5390.6360.4620.4210.074-0.1430.001max_nom0.624-0.1530.1470.0510.056-0.120-0.159-0.208-0.194-0.222-0.154-0.154-0.042-0.209-0.1340.0710.4170.282-0.217-0.0140.3860.722-0.300-0.3210.98810.4280.6330.3970.3690.084-0.1970.026max_no2m0.1300.4970.5430.2140.2100.0520.1510.2320.0650.0600.2810.2830.0250.2300.205-0.0070.5330.6170.323-0.1850.5520.6080.4620.4300.5390.42810.3220.6630.530-0.0040.367-0.093max_so2m0.3940.053-0.107-0.021-0.016-0.077-0.097-0.180-0.224-0.221-0.093-0.092-0.051-0.184-0.0420.1290.4210.212-0.345-0.2230.1910.441-0.202-0.2170.6360.6330.32210.2660.2310.059-0.314-0.192max_pm2_5m0.2310.5510.5130.1420.1340.1630.2670.3760.1800.1920.3890.3900.0940.3700.342-0.0310.7240.7670.4590.1280.7140.6360.4350.4020.4620.3970.6630.26610.7130.0980.4720.159max_pm10m0.2740.3820.4570.1300.1250.1160.1610.2060.0940.0820.2230.2210.0950.2040.183-0.0230.5270.7510.3100.0360.5160.4890.2630.2340.4210.3690.5300.2310.71310.1360.3300.061max_parttotm0.0690.0030.003-0.072-0.071-0.110-0.0100.0100.0450.097-0.039-0.027-0.1310.012-0.0280.6370.0360.0680.0810.0270.0860.032-0.080-0.0880.0740.084-0.0040.0590.0980.13610.0800.016temp_maxm-0.2360.5840.6650.1730.1610.2460.3880.6180.4610.4230.5440.5430.1650.6180.405-0.0810.1820.5030.9870.0490.4350.0870.6990.667-0.143-0.1970.367-0.3140.4720.3300.08010.074rh_maxm0.364-0.2120.095-0.036-0.0380.0980.0090.0490.1560.141-0.043-0.042-0.0280.052-0.013-0.0450.1820.1580.1110.8920.1580.070-0.149-0.1710.0010.026-0.093-0.1920.1590.0610.0160.0741

# A Study of Ambient Air Contaminants and

Asthma in New York City

Final Report

Part B:

Air Contaminants and Emergency

Department Visits for Asthma in the Bronx

and Manhattan

P r ep a r ed b y :

New Y o r k St at e De part m e nt of Heal t h

C e nt er fo r E n vi r onm ent a l Heal t h

54 7 R i ver St

Tr o y, NY 12 18 0- 2216

P r ep a r ed f o r :

The U. S. De part m e nt of Heal t h a n d Hum a n Se rvi ces

Age n cy fo r T oxi c S ubst a nces a n d Di sease R e gi st ry

(C o ope rat i v e A g reem ent V 50/ A T V 2 00 0 0 2

- 11)

Pro j ect M a nage r – M o h a m m e d U ddi n, M D, M P H

The Ne w York State E n ergy Res earch and Develop m en t Au thority

(G rant 1 4

- 0 034 -0 1 )

Pro j ect M a nage r – El l e n B u r kha r d , P h D

Fi nal : 17 Ju ly

, 2 0 0 6NOTI CE

Thi s rep o rt was p r epa r e d by t h e Ne w Yo r k St at e Depa rt m e nt of Heal t h ’ s C e nt e r f o r E n vi ronm ent a l Heal t h

,

th e New Yo rk State Dep a rtm e n t o f Env i ron m en tal Co n s erv a tion an d Co l u m b ia Un iv ersity in th e co urse o f

per f o r m i ng w o r k c o nt ract ed fo r an d sp o n so red by t h e Ne w York State E n ergy R e sea r ch an d De vel o pm ent

Aut h ority and the U.S. Age n cy for T oxic Substances a n d Disease Registry (hereafte r “the Sp ons o rs”). The

opi ni o n s e x presse d i n t h i s re po rt do n o t necessa ri l y refl ect t h o s e o f t h e S p o n s o rs o r t h e St at e of Ne w Y o r k

,

and re fere nce to a n y s p ecific product, service, process

, or m e thod doe s not constitute an im plied or e x presse d

recom m endat i on o r e n d o r s em ent of i t

. Fu rt her , t h e S p on so rs a n d t h e St at e o f Ne w Yo rk m a ke no wa rr ant i e s

o r

rep r esen tation s , exp r essed or im p lied

, as to t h e f itn ess fo r p a rticu l ar pu rp ose o r m e rch a n t ab ility o f an y

pr o duct

, ap parat u s, o r se r v i ce, or t h e use f ul ness, c o m p l e t e ness, o r acc uracy o f any p r oces ses, m e t h o d s, o r

ot he r i n fo rm at i on co nt ai ne d, desc ri be d, di scl o se d, o r refe rre d t o i n t h i s rep o r t . T h e Sp o n so rs, t h e St at e o f New

Yo rk , a n d t h e co nt ract ors m a ke no re pre s ent a t i o n t h at t

h e use o f a n y p r o d u ct , a p p a rat u s, p r o cess , m e t hod

, or

o t h e r inform atio n will no t infri n g e priv ately o w ned righ ts an d will assu m e n o liab ility fo r any loss, i n jury, or

d a m a g e resu lting fro m , o r o ccurring i n co nn ection w ith , t h e use of inform atio n con t ain e d

, d escrib e d

,

d i sclo sed

, or referred to in t h is repo rt.



### iiCONTENTS

NOT ICE

......................................................................................................................... .................................... ii

LIST OF T A BLES

................................................................................................................. ........................... iv

LIST OF F I GU RES

................................................................................................................ ............................ v

SUMMAR Y

........................................................................................................................ ............................... 7

INTR OD UCT I O N

................................................................................................................... ......................... 11

METHO D S

........................................................................................................................ ............................... 13

RESULT S

........................................................................................................................ ................................. 21

DISC US SI ON

..................................................................................................................... ............................. 27

CONCL U S I ON S A N D RECOMME ND AT IO NS

........................................................................................... 37

REFERE NCES

..................................................................................................................... ............................ 39

AUT H O RS AN D AC KN O W LE DG EMENTS

................................................................................................ 45

TABLES

......................................................................................................................... .................................. 47

FIG U RES

........................................................................................................................ ................................. 63



### iiiLIST OF T A BLES

Table 1. H o spital Em ergency D e partm e nt Visits by Reside nts of Br onx and Manha ttan St udy Area s

........ 48

Table 2. Mea n daily em ergency de partm e nt vi sits for asthm a and control c o nd itions

. ................................. 49

Table 3. Mea n c o ncentrati ons of air polluta nts and bioaer os ols m easured i n the Br onx and Manha tta n

. ..... 50

Tabl e 4. R e l a t i v e ri sks f o r

ast h m a ED vi si t s as a f unct i o n o f 5

- day m ean ai r p o l l u t i o n a n d bi oae r os ol s fr om

single- polluta nt m odels

........................................................................................................ ................. 51

Table 5. Relative risks f r om reg r essi ons ba sed on d a ily m a xim u m hourly e x p o s u re s

.................................. 53

Tabl e 6. R e l a t i v e va ri ance i n ast h m a ED vi si t s e xpl ai ne d by v a ri a b l e s i n cl ude d i n t h e m odel f o r dai l y 8

- hour

m a x i mu m O 3

. .............................................................................................................................. ........... 54

Tabl e 7. R e l a t i v e ri sks f o r

m ean cha nge i n c ont am i n ant c once n t r at i o ns f o r m odel s t h at di d not i n cl u d e

tem p erature as a c o variate.

.................................................................................................... ................ 55

Table 8. Res u lts f r o m Poisson re gressions of asthm a ED visits on pollens a n d m o lds.

................................ 56

Tab l e 9

. Relativ e risk s fo r asth m a ED v i sits as a f unct i o n o f 5 -day m ean ai r p o l l u t i o n fr om t wo-pol l u t a nt

m odels

......................................................................................................................... .......................... 57

Table 10. Correlations am ong key air pollu tants i n the Br onx study com m unity.

........................................ 58

Tab l e 1 1

. Relativ e risk s fo r co ntro l ED v i sits in rela tio n t o th e fi v e p o llu tan t s th at showed sign ifican t

associations with ast h m a ED visits in the B r onx

. ............................................................................... ... 59

Table 12. Relative ris k s f o r asthm a ED visits fr om single-poll u ta nt m odels, str a tified by gender

................ 60

Table 13. Relative ris k s f o r asthm a ED visits fr om single-poll u ta nt m odels , str a tified by a g e

. .................... 61



### ivLIST OF FIGURE S

Fi gu re 1. Air M onitoring L o cations in Manhattan a n d Br onx

........................................................................ 64

Fig u res 3

. Seasonal Pattern s o f Ho sp ital ED Ad m i ssio n s fo r Ast h m a Fitted with 18 DF Natural Sp lin e, for (a)

Figu re 4. Day

- o f -We ek Pattern s Plotted f o r Ho spita l E D Adm i ssions fo r Asthm a fo r (a) Br on x a n d ( b )

Fig u re 7

. Relativ e Risk for Asth m a ED Visits in B r onx an d Manh attan fo r 1 4 k ey Con t am in an ts for Prim ary

Fi gu re 8. Lag De pe nd ency of R e l a t i v e R i sk fo r Ast h m a i n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n fo r E x am pl e Pol l u t a nt s Figure 2. Map of St udy Area s a n d H o s p itals Contributing Em ergenc y De partm e nt Data

............................... 65

Bronx and ( b ) Ma nha ttan

........................................................................................................ .................. 66

Manhattan

...................................................................................................................... ........................... 67

Figure 5. Ast h m a ED Visits Plotte d a g ainst Tem p erature f o r ( a ) Br onx a n d (b) Ma nhattan

............................ 68

Figure 6. Age Distributions of St udy C o mm unities (U.S . Cens us 2000)

......................................................... 69

Analysis with Ba se -Case Model

. ................................................................................................. ............. 70

(PM 2.5 , S O 2 an d O 3 )

. ............................................................................................................................. .... 71



### v

### viSUMMARY

Most pre v ious st udies of ac ute asthm a exacerbations a n d am bient air pollution ha ve e x am ined effects of

o n l y a few o f the m a n y con t amin an ts th at are foun d in urb a n ai r, m a k i n g it d i fficu lt to d e term in e wh ich

sp ecific air po llu tan t or g r ou p of p o llu tan t s is m o st i m p o r tan t in t r igg e ri n g h o sp ital v i sits. In add itio n,

whe r eas n u m e rous st u d i e s h a ve re po rt ed ass o ci at i ons bet w een dai l y ai r p o l l u t i o n c once n t r at i o ns a n d c o u n t s

of

h o s p i t a l vi si t s f o r ast h m a or ot he r res p i r at ory di seases

, few st u d i e s have ev al uat e d w h et he r ri sks f o r

ai r

p o llu tion-related ho sp ital v i sits v a ry acro s s co mm u n ities th at d i ffer in t h eir b a selin e h ealth statu s

.

M i d-t o wn M a nh at t a n a n d t h e S out h B r o n x are se parat e d by l e s s t h a n 5 m i l e s. Ho wev e r, t h e t w o re gi o n s o f

New Yo rk City d i ffer g r eatly in lev e ls o f asth m a m o rb id ity. Alt h oug h th ese d ifferen ces are lik ely to b e

cause d by m u ltiple factors, includin g differe n tial access t o prim ary care for asthm a , the prese n t st udy was

not desi gne d t o investigate t h ese differe n ces. Rather, we i nvest i g at e d wh et her day

- t o -day v a ri at i o ns i n ai r

pol l u t i o n we re ass o ci at ed wi t h ast h m a em ergency dep a rt m e nt (ED ) vi si t s i n eac h c o m m uni t y and c o m p ared

th e m a g n itu d e of th e air po llu tio n effect b e tween th e two co mm u n ities. To inv e stig ate th is questio n, we

an alyzed d aily cou n t s of em erg en cy ast h m a v i sits to ho sp itals serv ing two d istin ct co mm u n ities, o n e i n

M a nhat t a n an d t h e ot he r i n t h e So ut h B r on x, al o n g wi t h dai l y enha nce d ai r m oni t o ri n g i n eac h c o m m uni t y

.

We an alyzed air qu ality and weath e r d a ta co llected o v e r approx im ate l y a two year p e riod , fro m Jan u ary

1 999 thro ugh Nov e m b er 200 0

, at t w o centrally located m easurem ent stations sam p ling a broad ra nge of

cont am i n ant s . Em ergen c y de part m e nt dat a on ast h m a vi si t s fo r t h e c o r r es pon di n g dat e s w e re c o l l ect ed fr om

th e 22 ho sp itals th ro ugh ou t New York th at serv ed t h e co mmu n ities surrou nd ing t h e air m o n ito ring station s

.

Data fo r ho sp ital p a tien t s wh o li v e d in zi p co de areas with in app r ox im a t ely 1

. 5 m iles o f eith er m easu r em en t

site were ex tracted

. Figu re 1 d e p i cts th e lo cation o f th e m o n itoring station s and ad j acen t areas for h ealth

d a ta. ( N o t e th at i n th e Bron x, th e m easu r em en t site w a s m o v e d du r i ng t h e stud y p e r i od ; Fig u r e 1 sh ow s

bot h si t e s. )

Usi n g t h ese dat a

, we c o m p ared t h e m a gni t u de of t h e rel a t i ons hi p s bet w ee n dai l y ast h m a ED vi si t s a n d ai r

p o llu tion and b i o a eroso l con cen t r atio n s acro s s th e t w o co mm u n ities, and ex am in ed relativ e im p acts o f

m u l tip le p o llu tan t s. In add itio n, we exp l o r ed the lag

- d e pend en cy of th e asth m a respon se, ag e and sex

stratification, and whet her effects were evi d ent for c o nt ro l ou tco m es (i.e., ED v i sits for cau s es no t lik ely to

b e related to air qu ality). W e u s ed Po isson regressi o n to test for effects of 1 4 k e y air co n t am in an ts on d a ily

ED v i sits, with co n t ro l for tem p o r al cycles, tem p er ature, a n d day-of-week e ffects

. T h e c o re analysis

u tilized th e av erag e expo sure for t h e zero- to fou r -d ay lag s . Sen s itiv ity an alyses ex am in ed ind i v i d u al lag

effects.



### 7Mean d aily cru d e rates o f asth m a ED v i sits were ov er eigh t f o l d h igh er in t h e Bron x stud y ar ea (1 6

. 9 p e r

10 0, 0 0 0 pe rs on s) t h an i n t h e M a nhat t a n area (2

. 0 2 per 1 0 0 ,00 0 pers o n s; Ta bl e 2). E xpl ori ng reas o n s fo r

th ese d i f f e r e nces w a s b e yond th e scop e of th e pr esen t stud y. C o ncen tr ati o n s of air con t am in an ts w e r e

g en e rally similar in th e t w o co mm u n ities (Tab le 3), with m ean lev els ten d i n g to b e slig h tly h i g h e r i n

Man h a ttan in m o st cases. Mean o z o n e an d to tal po llen lev e ls were sign ifican tly h i g h er i n th e Bro n x

.

Am ong 1 4 key p o l l u t a nt s exam i n ed i ndi vi d u al l y i n re gre ssi on a n al y s es, fi ve h a d st at i s t i cal l y si gni fi cant

effect s o n ast h m a ED vi si t s i n t h e B r o n x , i n cl u d i n g dai l y ei ght -hour m a xi m u m ozone (O 3 ), m ean daily

n itrog en d iox id e (NO 2 )

, s u l f ur di oxi de (S O 2 ), p a rticu l ate m att er with aer odynam i c dia m eter less than 2.5

microm e t ers (PM 2.5 ) a n d m a xi m u m one-ho u r PM 2.5 (Tab le 4). No statistically sig n i fican t po llu tion effects

were ob serv ed i n th e Manh attan co mm u n ity.

Our find ing s o f m o re sign ifican t ai r p o llu tion effects in t h e Bronx are lik ely to relate in p a rt t o g r eater

statistical p o w er fo r id en tifyin g eff ects in t h e B r onx whe r e baseline ED visits were greater, but t h ey m ay

also reflect greater sen s itiv ity to ai r p o llu tion effects in t h e Bron x.

In analyses restricted to t h e warm season (Ap r il thr oug h O c tober)

, O 3 effects i n the Bronx we re larger and

m o re sig n i fican t th an in th e fu ll-year an alysis, a n d they were approxim ate l y double those seen in

Man h a ttan, su gg esting greater su scep tib ility an d / or exp o s ure to th is airw ay irritan t an d pro-in flamm a to ry

ag en t i n the Br onx. A n alyses by sex sug g e sted t h at th e ai r p o llu tion ef f ects in t h e Bron x w e re g r eater

a m o n g fem a les th an m a les (Tab le 12 ). No strong d i ff ere n ces i n e ffects were obse rve d with age strata,

t h o u g h t h ere was s o m e i ndi cat i on of l a r g er e f f ect s i n ol de r a dul t s (Ta b l e 13 ).

In two

- p o llu tant an d th ree-po llu tan t regressio n m o d e ls, O 3 and SO 2 , an d t o a l e sse r e x t e nt m a xim u m one

h our PM 2.5 , were th e m o st rob u s t po llu tan t s (Tab le 9). In o t h e r word s, t h ese po ll u t an ts exh i b ited less

ch ang e i n their effect estim ates as ad d ition a l po llu tan t s were add ed to t h e m o d els. It is o f p articu l ar i n terest

th at w e ob serv ed m o r e r obu st h eal t h i m pact s of t h e dai l y m a xim u m PM 2.5 concentration than for t h e 24

-

ho u r m ean, su gg est i n g t h at pea k e x pos u r es m a y have l a r g e r h eal t h i m pact s.

An alysis o f ED v i sits for co n t ro l ou tco m es (larg ely for d i g e stiv e d i seases) revealed po sitiv e o r zero effects

fo r al l fi ve of t h e p o l l u t a nt s t h at ha d bee n s h ow n t o be ass o ci at ed wi t h a s t h m a vi si t s . I n one case, 2 4 -hour

mean PM 2.5 , th e con t ro l effect was statistically sig n i fican t. Th e an alysis o f ED v i sits fo r contro l ou tco m es

may su gg est th e po ssib ility o f ov erestim a t es o f t

h e o b serv ed asso ciatio n s

.

CO NCL USI O N S AN D RECO M M E N D A TIO N S

Th e resu lts sug g est th at t h e criteria po llu tan t s PM 2.5 , S O 2 , O 3 and NO 2 h a d a statistically d e tectab le im p act

o n acu te asth m a ED v i sits in a co mm u n ity with a relativ ely h i gh b a selin e rate o f acu t e ast h m a

exacerbations. In two-pollutant a n d th ree-pollutant re gressi on m odels, O 3 and S O 2 , and t o a lesser exte nt



### 8max i m u m o n e

- hour PM 2.5 , wer e the m o st robust pollu ta nts. R o bust e ffects of O 3 have b e e n see n i n pre v i o us

ED ast h m a studies (Stieb et al. 1996; Ma rtins et al. 200 2) an d in ho sp ital ad m issio n s stud ies o f asth m a an d

ot he r re spi r at ory di seases (B urn e t t et

al

. 19 9 7 ). It i s o f part i c ul a r i n t e re st t h at we ob ser v ed m o re r o bust

h ealth im p acts o f d aily m ax i m u m PM 2.5 concent r at i o n t h a n of t h e 2 4 -hour m ean, s u g g est i n g t h at pea k

expos u re s m a y have larger healt h im pacts. These ass o ciatio n s with h ealth eff ects in the B r onx occurre d at

a m b i en t air lev e ls th at are b e low th e curren t short- term Natio nal Am b i en t Air Qu ality Stand ard s (NAAQS).

Th e fo llowing reco mmen d a tio ns are su gg ested b a sed o n th e st u d y resu lts:

1. EPA shou ld co nsid er th e fi n d i ngs in th is st u d y an d ot he rs i d en t i f y i n g resp i r atory health effects

associated with SO 2 co nce n t r at i o ns bel o w c u rr e n t st an dar d s d u ri ng t h ei r r e vi e w of t h e S O 2 NAAQS

.

2. Future tim e-series studies exam ining ass o ciations bet w een am b i en t air po llu tan t s and h ealth

out c o m e s wo ul d be nefi t f

r o m di rect eval uat i o n o f t h e rel a t i o n s hi p bet w ee n per s o n al e x p o s u re an d re gi o n al

m oni t o ri ng dat a

.

3. Mo re research shou ld b e cond u c ted to try to d eterm in e if p eak, sho r t-term (e.g

. hou rly)

elevated c o ncentrations of PM 2.5 are m o re strongly ass o ciated tha n daily avera g e c o n cen t r atio ns with

asth m a an d o th e r h ealth en dpo in ts. If th e scien ce is su ff icien tly stron g , co nsid eratio n shou ld b e g i v e n to t h e

effects of s h ort-term PM 2.5 ex cu rsion s in fu ture rev i ews o f the pa rticulate m a tter NAAQS.

4. The hi g h c o r r el at i o n s bet w ee n pol l u t a nt s (i ncl u di n g c o m pone nt s of PM 2.5 ) m ak e it d i fficu lt in

th ese ep id em io lo g ic stud ies t o co nfid en tly id en tify criti cal co m p o u n d s

. Altern ativ e strateg i es to add r ess th is

q u e stio n shou ld b e con s id ered in th e fu tu re.

5. Furt her eval uat i o n of t h e st at i s t i cal m e t hods em pl oy ed i n t i m e-seri es epi d em i o l ogi cal st udi es

i s war r a n t e d, base d o n t h e s ugg est i o n of p o ssi bl e m odel bi as i n di cat ed by o u r a n al y s i s of con t r o l out c o m e s.

6. To t h e ex ten t th at targ eted co mm u n ity b a sed ast h m a in terv en tion s are p l an n e d with resp ect to

air po llu tion m e ssag e s, h i gh er priority sho u l d be g i v e n t o co mm u n ities with larg er ast h m a b u r d e n s

.



### 9

### 10Section 1

INTRODUCTION

Asth m a is a seriou s and g r owing h ealth p r ob lem

. An estim ated 1 4 .9 m i llio n p e rson s in t h e Un ited States

have ast h m a (N HLB I 1 9 9 9 )

. The n u m b er of pe o p l e wi t h ast h m a i n crease d by 1 0 2 % bet w een 1 9 7 9 –80 and

19 9 3

– 9 4 (NC H S 1 9 9 7 )

. T h e gr eat est i n crea se i n p r e v al ence an d se veri t y h a s been am ong ch i l d ren a n d

yo un g adu lts liv ing i n p oor in ner- city n e ighb orh ood s ( E gg leston et al

. 1 999 )

. Th e U

. S. D e p ar tm e n t o f

Health a n d Hum a n Services has ac knowle dged t h e se ri ousness of t h e problem by declaring ast h m a and

en v i ron m en tal p o llu tion as two o f th e Health y Peop le 201 0 focu s areas.

Past st u d i e s have f o u n d di scern i bl e di f f ere n ces i n am b i en t co ncen tration s o f so m e bu t no t all air

contam inants in urba n a r eas for sites a s close a s t h re e to fiv e m iles ap art. Su h et al. (1995) collected 24

-

ho u r sam p l e s of s u l f at e, hy d r og e n i o n, an d am m oni a sim u l t a neousl y at se ven l o cat i o ns i n Ph i l a del phi a a n d

an up wi n d m oni t o r du ri n g t h e s u m m ers of 199 2 a n d 1 9 9 3 . B a se d on an assessm ent o f s p at i a l vari at i o n, t h ey

concl ude d t h at a si ngl e m oni t o ri n g st at i o n was a d e quat e f o r sul f at e (c onsi s t e nt wi t h l o n g -range t r a n s p ort

being the dom i nant source); howe ver, m u ltiple sites were necessary to dete rm ine local outd oor hydroge n

io n con cen t r atio ns. Go ld stein and Land ov itz ( 1977) fou n d a poo r cor r e lation am o n g air m o n itor ing sites

with in a m e tro p o litan area fo r certain ai r co n t am in an ts (e.g., su lfu r d i o x i d e ). Recen t wo rk b y Kinn ey an d

colleagues indicates that elem ental car bon p a rticle con c en tration s ex h i b it m a rk ed sp atial v a riation s with i n

New Y o r k C i t y as a f

unct i on of l o cal t r af fi c de nsi t y (Kinney et al. 2000; Le na et al. 2002). These st udies

su gg est t h at fo r certain air con t amin an ts it is very im p o r tan t to m easu r e t h e air con t am in an ts with in th e

co mm u n ity b e in g st u d ied

. In th e presen t stud y, all su b j ects r e si d e d w ith i n ap pr ox im atel y 1

. 5 m i les o f t

h e

m o n ito rin g sites u s ed to ch aracterize co mm u n ity air q u a lity.

Bo th p a rticu l ate m a tter an d O 3 ha ve bee n associated with respi r atory im pacts a m ong asthm atics. For

ex am p l e, a stu d y cond u cted i n Seattle fou n d a corre lation b e tween ho sp ital em erg e n c y roo m v i sits for

ast h m a and part i c ul at e (PM 10 ) air conce n trations (Sc h wa rtz et al. 19 93)

. Th is ef f ect w a s no ted ev en t h oug h

d aily PM 10 co n c en tration s n e v e r ex ceed e d cu rren t U.S. am b i en t air qu ality stan d a rds. Am o n g 15 st u d i es of

asthm a ED visits that i n corporated a d e q uate contro ls for seasonal p a ttern s, all rep o rted at least on e

sig n ifican t p o s itiv e asso ciatio n i n vo lv i n g O 3 o r particu l ate m atter (Cassin o et al. 19 99 ; D e lf ino et al. 199 6,

1 998 ; H e rn and ez- Gar dun o et al. 1 997 ; Jaf f e et al. 2003 ; Jon e s et al. 1 995 ; Mar tin s et al. 2 0 0 2 ; Stieb et al.

1996; Te nias et al. 1998; T o bias et al. 1999; T o lbe r t et al. 2000).

Few pr evi ous st u d i e s have i n vest i g at e d t h e ass o ci at i on of air c ontam inants wit h ac ute ast h m a attacks in

New Y o r k C i t y . T h urst on et al

. (1 9 9 2 ) st udi ed t h e rel a t i o nshi p bet w ee n h o spi t a l a d m i ssi ons f o r a s t h m a (and

all respirat ory a d m i ssions) a n d am bient acidic particulate m a tter and O 3 conc e n t r at i ons d u r i n g t h e sum m er

i n se veral regi o n s i n Ne w Y o rk St at e. The resea r c h ers di d not ha ve ai r co nt am i n ant dat a f o r N e w Y o r k



### 11C i t y , but rat h er u s ed dat a fr om t h e nea r by a n d l e ss u r ba ni zed ci t y of Whi t e Pl ai ns . T h ey f o un d t h at

elevation of O 3 , aer o so l st r ong acid ity (h ydr o g en i o n) an d sulf ate we re a ssociated wit h inc r eases i n ast h m a

adm i ssions in the s u mm er in Buffalo a n d New York City. Howev e r, th ey fo und th e asso ciatio n s were

weake r i n Al bany an d t h e l e ss u r ba ni zed Ne w Y o r k C i t y sub u rb s. Po ten tial reaso n s for th is differen ce m a y

b e so m e ch emical o r p h y sical d i fference in th e co m p o s itio n o r m i x o f air co n t am in an ts in th e m o re d e n s ely

p opu lated areas o r d i fferen ces in su scep tib ility o f th e po pu latio ns stud ied. Oth e r o l d e r stud ies con d u c ted in

New Y o r k C i t y di d not re po rt a n ai r c o nt am i n ant e ffect on hos p ital visits for asthm a. Greenburg et al.

(1 9 6 4 ) di d n o t fi nd an ass o ci at i on bet w een sul f u r di o x i d e , car b o n m ono xi de

, or pa rt i c ul at e coe ffi ci ent of

haze a n d em ergency clinic visits duri ng Se ptem ber an d October. Gol d stein and Du l b erg (1981) also found

no si g n i f i cant rel a t i o n s hi p bet w ee n ho spi t a l em ergency depa rt m e nt vi si t s fo r ast h m a and s u l f ur

di oxi de or

coefficient of haze m easurem ents duri ng the late s u mm er and ea rly fall. Many studies have evaluated the

correlations bet w een asthm a attack s and am bient air c o ntam inants duri ng on ly on e season , wh ich m a y n o t

be represe n tative of t h e im pact of va rious air contam i n ant s t h r o u g h out t

h e y ear. I n a d di t i on, st udi e s m a y

have ha d l i m i t e d po wer t o det ect ef fect s.

On e im p o r tan t facto r in i d en tifyin g a cau sal asso ciatio n bet w een air c o ntaminants a n d asthm a is biological

p l au si b ility, su ch as th at exh i b ited b y con t amin an ts k nown to i rritate th e resp i r atory tract. Ald e h y d e s (e.g.,

acetaldehyde , acrolein, form al dehyde and propionalde h yde ) represe n t a n im portant class of hazardous air

polluta nts (HAPs ) that could ne gatively affect asth m a t i c s. Form al dehy de has been re po rt ed t o i n d u ce

asth m a in so m e in d i v i du als ex po sed i n o ccup a tion a l setting s (e.g ., Fein m a n 198 8). Acu t e, sm all d ecreases

i n res p i r at ory fu nct i o n (f orce d e x pi rat o ry v o l u m e at 1 sec o nd, F E V 1 ) ha v e bee n re po rted after ex p o su re i n

o ccup a tion a l settin gs (e.g., Alex and e r sson et al

. 1 982 ). Stud ies o f asth m atics su gg est th at t h ey m ay n o t b e

sen s itiv e to fo rm ald e h y d e at con c en tration s b e low t h o s e seen in o ccupation a l expo sures (e.g., Harv ing et al.

19 8 6 ) . Ot her al de hy des , a n d t h e p o t e nt i a l i n t e ract i o ns o f al deh y d e s wi t h ot he r am bi ent co nt am i n ant s , ha ve

not bee n as wel l st udi e d

.

The heal t h st udy p r ese n t e d he re was desi g n e d t o add r ess two ov erall o b j ectiv es. Fi rst, we so ugh t to

exam ine whet her t h e m a gnitude of a c ute air pollution e ffects on ac ute ast h m a ED visits di ffe red in t w o

co mm u n ities th at h a d d i fferen t b a selin e ED rates for asth m a . Secon d

, we wan t ed to inv e stig ate wh ich air

contam inants or m i x of air c ontam inants was m o st associate d with ac ute asthm a exacerbations i n eac h

comm unity. The study design foc u ses on ac ute e x acerbations of e x isting a s thm a and does not addre s s

fact or s i n fl ue nci n g ast h m a preval e n ce or de vel o pm ent of new l y

- di ag n o s e d ast h m a . Part A of t h i s repor t

prese n ts t h e res u lts of the am bient air sam p ling stud y that were used to e x plore the ass o ciation bet w een

asth m a ED v i sits an d air p o llu tan t co n c en tration s

. Part A co m p ares ai r p o llu tan t con c en tration s on a

seasonal ba sis bet w ee n sites and desc ribe s the correla tion b e tween t h e sites for th e air con t amin an ts, t h e

correlations am ong c o ntam inants within each site, a n d tem poral contam inant patterns.



### 12Section 2

METHODS

To a d dress t h e st u d y o b j ect i v es, we de vel o ped a n d a n alyzed a n a p proxim ately two-year record of daily

obs er vat i o n s on em ergency depa rt m e nt vi si t s and ai r c o nt am i n ant m easurem ent s i n t w o area s of Ne w Yo r k

City. Th e stud y d e sign was a ti m e -series an alysis of air pollutant c o ncentrations and ac ute ast h m a

exacerbations (as as sesse d by asthm a e m ergency depa rtm e nt visits). T h e prim ary hypothesis was that

te m poral c h anges in i ndi vidual am bient air polluta nt conce n trations were associated with tem poral

variation in asthm a e m ergency de part m e nt visits. T h ese assoc i ations were tested se pa rately in each study

area. A sec o nda ry hypothesis was that the nature an d/or st rength of ass o ciations betwee n am bient air

p o llu tan t pattern s and ast h m a e m erg e n c y d e p a rtm e n t v i sits d i ffered b e tween th e two st u d y co m m u n ities.

A brief s u m m a ry of t h e m e thods use d for c o llection of air quality data a n d details on the m ethods used to

col l ect an d a n al y ze t h e heal t h d a t a a r e prese n t e d i n t h i s sect i o n. A c o m p l e t e descri pt i o n o f t h e m e t hods

use d to collect and a n alyze am bient ai r c ont am i n ant s i s gi ve n i n Part A.

COLLECTION OF AIR QUALITY DATA

Mu ltip le air co n t am in an ts were m o n ito red at a cen t rally lo cated site i n each co mm u n ity. Mo n ito red air

contam inants include d real-tim e one-hour pa rticulate m a tter (PM) less than 1 0 m i crom eters ( μ m) i n

aerodynam ic dia m eter (PM 10 ) a n d PM 2.5 b y tap e red elem en t o s cillatin g micro b a lan ce (TEOM); d a ily 2 4

-

h our av e r ag e P M 2.5 on filters u s i n g th e Fed e ral Referen ce Meth o d (FRM); p a rticle nu m b er con c en tration s

f r o m 0

. 00 7 to 2.5 μ m aerody nam i c di am et er usi n g a co n d en sat i o n pa rt i c l e co unt e r ; t h ree-hour a v e r a g e

orga nic and elem ental (i.e., soot) carb on b y th erm a l an alysis; PM 2.5 m e tals (Cr, Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni , a n d Z n );

aeros ol pH (e xp resse d a s H+ co nce n t r at i o n, i .e., [ H +] = 10 -pH ); a e rosol sul f ate; the c r iteria gases ozo n e

(O 3 ), n itrog en d i ox id e (NO 2 ) and su l f ur d i ox id e ( S O 2 ) u s i n g st an da rd real -t i m e m e t hods; a n d bi oaer os ol s

i n cl udi ng p o l l e n an d fu n g al s p o r es. Pol l e n a n d f u ngal s p o r es were categ orized in to sev e ral larg e (in so m e

cases ov erlapp ing ) group s for statistical an alyses, b ase d o n taxo no m i c an d / o r m o rpho log i c sim i larities. Fo r

pollen, the categories we re tree

, gras s, ragweed a n d to tal p o llen. For fun g al spo r es, t h e categories were

basi di osp o r es, a s cos p ores

, dark m i t o spo r es, no n

- dar k m i t o spo r es, sm all spo r es (< 10 μ m in the larg est

di m e nsi on), l a rg e s p ores (> 1 0 μ m in th e larg est d i m en s io n ) and t o tal spores.

Fi gu re 1 s h ows a m a p o f t h e st u d y a r eas a n d ai r m oni t o ri n g si t e s. The ai r sam p l i ng l o cat i o ns were U S

En vi ro nm ent a l Prot ect i o n A g ency (EP A ) ap pr o v e d ai r m oni t o ri ng st at i o ns operate d by the Ne w York State

Depa rt m e nt of E n vi r onm ent a l C onse r vat i o n (N Y S D E C ), au gm ent e d by a d di t i onal sam p l i ng eq ui pm ent

ope rat e d by t h e New Y o r k St at e De part m e nt of Heal t h ( N YS D O H )

. I n t h e B r on x, t w o si t e s were use d i n a

sequ en tial fash ion

. Th e in itial Bronx sam p lin g site was at In term ed iate Sch o o l (IS) 15 5, lo cated at 47 0



### 13Jack so n Av en u e . Th is site o p e rated fr o m Janu ar y thro ugh Ju ly 19 99 , af ter w h ich a con s tru c tio n pro j ect w a s

in itiated at th e scho o l . Acco rd ing l y, t h e Bron x stud y site was m o v e d to Mid d le Schoo l (MS) 5 2 , lo cated at

68 1 Kel l y St reet , w h i c h p r o v i d e d st udy dat a fr om Sept em ber 1 9 9 9 t h r o u g h N o vem b er 20 0 0 . The M S 52

site was ap pro x i m a tel y 0

. 5 m iles n o r th east of th e orig i n al IS 155 site. A co m p arison o f resu lts fro m b o t h

sites w ith co rresp ond ing Man h a ttan d a ta (for Jan u a ry– J u ly 1 999 fo r th e in itial site an d Jan u a ry– J u ly 2000

for th e n e w site) su gg ested th at t h e resu lts fro m th e two sites were co m p arab le. In Man h a ttan, m o n ito ri n g

was ca rri e d out fr om Janua ry 1 9 9 9 t h ro u g h No v e m b er 2000 at t h e M a n h at t a n C o m p re hen s i v e Ni g h t a n d

Day Hi gh Sc ho ol (al s o k n o w n as t h e M a bel D ean B aco n Hi gh Sch o o l ) , l o cat ed at 2 4 0 Sec o n d A v e nue

.

Inst rum e nt s i n M a nhat t a n sam p l e d f r om a r ooft o p a p pr oxi m a t e l y seven st o r i e s hi g h ; t h ose i n t h e B r on x

sam p led fro m a roo f top app r o x i m a tely fo u r stories ab ov e t h e grou nd . Fo r fu rt h e r d e tails on data co llectio n

m e t hods an d fi n d i n gs, see Part A.

To perform the health anal yses, it was neces sary t o re place m i ssing values in t h e air data with estim ates.

Values we re estim ated by re gressi on on a seas onal basi s

, fi rst on the sam e analyte at the othe r site, t h en on

correlated a n alytes (from e ith er sam e site o r o t h er site, in ord e r of dec r easi n g st ren g t h of c o r r el at i o n).

The first reg r essio n pe rf orm e d wa s acr oss sites. For e x am ple, sulfate values at the Manhattan site were used

to pred ict v a lu es for m i ssin g su l f ate d a ta at th e B r onx site, an d v i ce v e rsa. To fill in rem a in in g m i ssin g

val u es

, pre d i c t o r va ri abl e s we re sel ect ed by ra nki ng t h e v a riab les fro m stro n g est to weak est co rrelation

. Fo r

ranking purposes the correlation over t h e e n t i r e st udy pe ri o d w a s use d ; the correlation was not c o m p ared on

a seaso n al basi s. R e gr essi o n on a sea s o n al basi s was per f o r m e d o n t h e o r i g i n al dat a usi n g t h e di f f ere n t

pre d ictor va riables until all m i ssing values had bee n re placed. For e x am ple, 67 of t h e 75 m i ssing values for

sulfate at t h e Bronx site we re estim ated by regressi on on su lfate at th e Man h a ttan site; th e ei g h t rem a in in g

missin g v a l u es were estim a t ed b y add itio n a l regression m o d e ls to fill in th e rem a in in g m i ssin g v a l u es.

Co rrelatio n co efficien ts u tilized for filling in m i ssin g v a lu es were g e n e rally greater t h an 0

. 5

. Asid e fro m

fillin g in th e su mm er Bro n x 1 999 d a ta, wh en th e site w a s sh u t do wn and relocated, o n ly a relativ ely few

v a lu es h a d t o b e filled in ; th ey g e n e rally ch an ged th e m ean co n c en tration esti m a tes b y less th an 1 0 %

.

COLLECTION OF HEALTH DATA

A s n o ted on Figur e 1

, t h e two st ud y ar eas co m p r ised six zip cod e s i n th e Bro n x (1 045 1, 1 0 4 54, 1 045 5,

1 045 6, 1 045 9, an d 104 74) an d 12 zi p co d e s in Manh attan ( 1 0001 , 100 03 , 10 009 , 100 10 , 10 011, 1 001 2,

1 001 4, 1 001 6, 1001 7, 1 001 8, 1002 0, an d 100 36)

. To se lect h o sp itals f r o m w h ich to ex tr act ED d a ta, w e

first id en tified ho sp itals th at serv ed resid e n t s liv ing i n t h e zip cod e s. During th e p l an ni ng p h a se of t h e

stu d y , d a ta on asth m a ho sp ital ad m i ssio n s fro m th e Statewide Planning a n d Re sea r ch Cooperative System

(SPARCS) were u s ed to id en tify po ten tial stu dy h o s p ita l s

. We use d S P AR C S dat a fr om 19 96 an d 1 9 9 7 t o

determ ine the num b er of hos p ital ad m i ssions for asthm a at each hospital that would service t h e study a r eas.

W e id en tif ied 24 ho sp itals th r ough ou t N Y C th at recor d ed an av er ag e of at least 10 asth m a ad m issio n s p e r



### 14year b y resid e n t s fro m th e stu d y area zi p co d e s. On e elig ib le facility (Un i o n Ho s p ital) was exclud ed

because it had cl osed in early 1998 , and anot her (St. Clare’s Hospita l and Health Center) was excluded

because we were una b le to obtain the nec essary da ta from this facility. Ther e f ore, 22 hospitals were

i n cl ude d i n t h e st u d y (Fi g ure 2 )

.

Eig h t o f th e 22 ho sp itals were l o cated in t h e Bron x and 14 were located in Ma nhattan (Figure 2). Sixtee n

hos pi t a l s we re p ri v at el y o w ned a n d ope rat e d; si x we re pub lic ho sp itals (three in th e B r onx and three in

Manhattan) a d m i nistered by the New York City Heal t h an d Ho sp itals Co rpo r ation (HHC). When sev e ral

hos pi t a l s we re j o i n t l y o w ne d or m e rged d u ri ng t h e co urs e of t h e st udy

, dat a w e re c o l l ect ed fr om a si n g l e

source rathe r than from each hos pital individually. T h e st udy was originally de signed to c o llect data on all

e m ergency departm e nt visits duri ng one year, from Janua ry 1, 1999, t h rough Decem ber 31, 1999, but to

enha nce study power and t o ca pture data from a summ er season in t h e B r onx, t h is tim e frame was exte nded

to in clud e add itio n a l d a ta thro ug h Nov e m b er 2000

.

The st udy was gi ven 2 0 6 ( 1 ) ( j ) desi gnat i o n by t h e Ne w Y o r k St at e C o m m i ssi oner o f Heal t h i n l a t e 1 9 9 6

.

Th is d e sign atio n allowed NYSDOH to co llect th e d a ta n eed ed fo r t h e st u d y and facilitated th e co op erati o n

of

t h e st udy h o s p i t a l s . Thi s desi g n at i o n co nfer s p r ot ect i o n on t h e i n f o rm at i on a n d re p o rt s c o l l ect ed,

main tain s con f i d en tiality, an d gu aran tees th at th e d a ta will b e u s ed so lely fo r t h e pu rpo s es o f scien tific

researc h with res p ect to t h is study. By February 2002, data ha d been recei ved from all 22 hos p itals.

Th e d ata elem en ts requ ested fro m th e h o s p itals in cl u d e d m e di cal reco rd n u m b er; pat i e nt ’s nam e , dat e o f

birth, se x, race, social security num ber a n d reside ntial street addr e ss (including zi p c o de); source of

p a ym en t; e m erg e n c y d e p a rtm e n t v i sit d a te; p r in ci p a l d i agn o s is cod e ; ad d itio nal d i agn o s is cod e s and

hos pi t a l adm i ssi on a n d di sc har g e dat e s (i f a ppl i c a b l e ). T h e dat a esse nt i a l fo r t h e st udy were m e di cal recor d

num ber, resi dent i a l st reet a d dress (i ncl u di n g zi p co de ), em erge ncy de pa rt m e nt vi si t dat e and pri n ci pal

diagnosis code. In s o m e cases additiona l d iag nosis co des w e r e also pr ov id ed

.

SAS statistical so ftware an d SQL (Stru c tured Qu ery Lan g u a ge) were u s ed to pro c ess th e data in to a

consistent form at. The datasets were concate n ated i n t o a m a st er SAS dat a set c ont ai ni n g 62 9, 2 2 7

obs er vat i o n s an d 1 9 dat a fi el ds. Twel ve fi el ds were f r om t h e E D dat a p r ovi ded by t h e hos pi t a l s (i ncl u di n g

hos pi t a l i d e n t i f i cat i on n u m b er, se x, ED vi si t d a t e , a d m i ssi on an d di scha r g e dat e s, pri n ci pal di a g no si s a n d

seco nda ry di a g n o ses )

. Se ven fi el ds we re c r eat ed , i n cl udi ng t h e pat i e nt ’ s a g e ( f r o m t h e dat e o f bi rt h a n d E D

v i sit d a te) and fiel d s t o id en tify th e stud y areas, ast h m a cases and c ontrols. The dataset use d for statistical

anal y s i s di d n o t c o nt ai n a n y pe rs onal i d ent i fy i n g i n f o rm at i on.

Ast h m a cases we re obt ai ned f r om ED reco r d s wi t h a p r i n ci pal di ag n o si s IC D

- 9 cod e o f 49 3 a n d, i n

ad d ition

, fo r ch ildren less than on e year o l d

, cod e s 46 6.1 (acute b r on ch i o litis) and 7 8 6

. 09 (o t h er d y sp n e a



### 15and res p irat ory a b norm alities, in cluding wheezing a n d s h ortnes s of breath). T h e latter we re incl ude d

because of t h e difficulty of diagnosi n g asthm a in infants.

We also co un ted ED v i sits for a set of “con t ro l” h ealth cond itio n s assu m e d a pri o ri to be un related to air

p o llu tion

. By an alyzing t h ese data in relatio n to air p o llu ti o n

, we h o p e d to v e rify th e absen c e of si g n i fican t

associations, t h ere b y inferring a lack of bias in our asthm a analyses. T h ese included cases with principal

di ag no si s IC D-9 c o des 36 5 ( g l a uc om a), 3 6 6 .0-366

. 3 (cat a r act ), 5 3 1

. 0 -531. 3 (ac u t e gast ri c ul cer ), 5 3 2 .0

-

532.3 (ac u te duode n al ulcer), 533.0-5 33.3 (acute pe ptic ulcer), 534.0-534. 3 (ac u te ga stroje junal ulcer), 535

(gast r itis and duodenitis), 537 (dis orders of stom ach a n d duodenum ), 540-543 ( a ppe n dicitis or diseas es of

the appe ndi x), 558 (non-i nfectious gast roe n teritis an d c o litis), 574-575 (cholelithia sis), 590 (infections of

t h e ki dney ) a n d 5 9 9 (ot h er di so r d er s of uret hra and urinary t r act).

Seco nda ry di ag nose s were n o t used t o i d ent i f y a s t h m a cases and controls for t w o rea sons. First, Ne w York

City H H C cou ld on ly pro v i d e th e pr im ar y d iag no sis and th e nu m b er o f seco ndar y d iagno ses v a r ied am o n g

the rem aining hospitals. Sec ond, these diagnoses coul d be co-existing c o nditions but not necessa rily acute

co nd itio ns related to th e prim ary d i ag no sis.

STATISTI CAL A NAL YSI S

S-Plus so ft ware was u s ed to analyze asso ciatio n s b et w een d aily air qu ality an d asth m a ED v i sit cou n t s,

co n t ro lling for season

, d ay-of-w eek and tem p eratu r e (“co nfound ing v a riab les”). A l t h oug h h u m id ity w a s

anot her p o t e nt i a l co n fo u nde r, i t di d n o t a

ppear t o be n ecessary to con t ro l sep a rately fo r hu m i d ity, sin ce it is

highly correlated with seas on and tem p erature. We as sesse d the ass o ciations bet w een the a sthm a

ad m i ssio n s d a ta and air po llu tan t s bo th in d i v i du ally and i n m u lti-p o llu tan t m o d e ls. App r o p riately

co n t ro lling for im p o r tan t con f ound ing v a riab les is critical to iso l ate th e influ e n ce o f air co n t am in an ts on

asth m a resp on se. We u s ed th e gen eral lin ear m o d el (G LM ) to pe rf o r m Poisso n reg r essio n

. We used na t u ral

splines t o c ont rol for date a n d tem p erature; we als o c ont rol l e d f o r day

- of-week e f f ect s. Thi s ap pr oac h fi t s

sm ooth functions (natural s p lines) of t h e asthm a count s a s a function of each confoundi ng va riable, which

i n ef fect s h o u l d l eave i n t act t h e s h ort e r-t erm fl uct u at i o ns i n ast h m a count s t h at m a y be ex pl ai na bl e i n pa rt

b y th e ai r q u a lity p a ram e ters. Th e GLM app r oach u s ing sp lin e sm o o t h i ng h a s b een reco mm en d e d b y

Do m i n i ci et al. (200 2) as an altern ati v e to LOES S sm o o t h i ng u s ing g e n e ralized add itiv e m o d e ls (GAM).

Alth oug h we d i d n o t con s trai n th e sh ap e of th e sp lin e f itted b y S-p l u s , we selected th e nu m b er of d egrees o f

free dom (D F) fo r t h e c u r v e. Th e c hoi ce of DF a ffects t h e final result, and we m ad e efforts to test th e

sen s itiv ity o f resu lts to a rang e o f DF ch o i ces. An app r op riat e ch o i ce of DF cap t ures t h e v a riab ility o f th e

resp o n se vari abl e wi t h re ga rd t o t h e c o n f ou n d i n g vari a b l e b u t doe s not “over-fi t ” t h e d a t a at ri sk o f

erro n e ou sly attribu tin g too m u ch v a riab ility to th e co nfoun d i ng v a riab le and und erestim a tin g th e risk du e to

air po llu tion

.



### 16Ho sp ital v i sits for ast h m a v a ry ov er th e year. Altho ugh so m e o f th is v a riatio n m a y b e d u e to ai r q u a lity

vari at i o ns (t he s u b j ect o f t

h e prese n t st u d y )

, beha vi o r al

, p h y s i o l o gi cal an d ot he r ca uses are t houg h t t o pl ay

a d o m i nant rol e i n dri v i n g seas o n al pat t e r n s . F o r i n st a n ce, t h ere is an inc r ease i n the asthm a attack rate in

th e fall fro m u n kno wn factors (Blaisd e ll et al. 2 002 ), a ltho u g h th ere is so m e su gg estion t h at v i ral infectio ns

p l ay an im p o r tan t ro le (e.g ., Jo hnston et al. 19 96, 2 005 ). Th u s

, fittin g t h e season al v a riab ility with n a tural

spl i n e fu nct i o ns i s ai m e d at rem ovi ng t e m poral c o r r el at i o n s bet w ee n e x p o s u re an d o u t c om e t h at are m o st

lik ely n o t related t o an y cau sal relatio nsh i p in vo l v ing ai r pol l u t i o n. Fi g u res 3a a n d 3b sh o w t h e rel a t i o ns hi p

o f

asth m a to d a y o f year for t h e two st ud y sites and illu strates th e n a tural sp lin e fit to the d a ta u s i n g 18

d e grees of freedo m , wh ich was d eem ed ad eq uate to cap t u re the ob serv ed season al v a riab ility in asth m a

.

Ho sp ital u tilizatio n

, i n clud ing ED v i sits, is kn own to v a ry with d a y of week . To en su re th at week ly p a ttern s

in ho sp ital ED visits were no t erron e ou sly attrib u t ed t o ai r p o l l u t a nt s (s om e of w h i c h al so ex hi bi t day

- of

week pat t e r n s )

, day

- o f -w eek ef fect s we re c o nt r o l l e d as a cl ass vari a b l e i n GLM . Fi gur e s 4a a n d 4b s h o w

th e relation s h i p o f asth m a to d a y of week fo r th e t w o stud y sites. No t e th at p eak v i sits o c cu rred on M o nd ay

at

bot h si t e s.

Tem p erature m a y also infl uence asthm a exacerbations. S catterplots of t h e raw as thm a and tem p erature data

are s h own in Figures 5a a n d 5b. We see t h at asthm a vi sits tend ed to b e h i gh est at l o wer tem p eratu r es, and

lowe r as t h e tem p erature rose. Som e or m o st of th is relationship m ay reflect the sam e seasonal factors

already c ont rolled by t h e s p line on date. Howe ver, because O 3 and othe r pollutants a r e c o rrelated with

t e m p erat ure

, we i n cl ude d t e m p erat u r e as a con f o u ndi ng va ri abl e

, sm oot he d wi t h a nat u ral spl i ne usi n g 3

DF, which was a d equate to capt u re the sm ooth c u rve.

A Po isso n reg r ession m o d e l was selected to q u an tif y t h e relation s h i p s b et w een asth m a an d air qu ality.

Po isso n reg r ession is a stand a rd m o d e l for d ealing with a d e p e nd en t v a riab le of co un ts. Th e Po isson

regression a ssum es a log-linear res pon se b e tween t h e d e pend en t v a riab le an d th e lin ear pred ict o r. In t h is

case, th e d e p e n d e n t v a riab le is asth m a ED co un ts, an d th e lin ear p r ed ictor is t h e su m o f air qu ality an d

co nfo und ing v a riab les in clud ed i n th e m o d e l.

Fo r a sim p le Po isso n m o d e l with ou tco m e Y regressed o n on e po llu tan t X, th e assu m p tio n o f a l o g-lin ear

respon se im p lies th at

Log(Y) = α + β *X

or



### 17Y = EXP ( α )* EXP( β *X) = C * e β x

RR = EXP( β *X )

Y = C * RR

whe re

Y is t h e o u t co m e v ariab le (e.g ., d aily asth m a ED co un ts);

X is t h e lev el o f th e air p o l l u tio n v a riab le;

α is th e in tercep t term ;

β is th e slop e relatin g ch ang e s i n asth m a ED cou n t s to ch an g e s in po llu tan t concen t r atio n ;

C is th e b a selin e lev e l of d a ily asth m a ED co un ts in th e ab sence of air po llu tion ; and

RR is relativ e risk , or th e pro p o rti o n a l i n crease in d a ily asth m a ED co un ts fo r an i n crease of X i n

p o llu tan t co n centration

.

So , fo r an in crease i n p o llu tan t con c en tration of a v a lu e X, the ED count inc r eases by a factor of RR. T h us,

th e m o d e l assu m e s a con s tan t propo rtion a l in crease in ast h m a co un ts p e r un it in crease in po llu tion

.

AN ALY S IS STR A TEG Y

Alth oug h a large nu m b er of air quality p aram eters were m easu r ed in t h e st u d y , we cho s e to ex am in e 1 4 k ey

param e t e rs or g r ou ps o f param e t e rs t h at

, by co nse n s u s am ong t h e co -i nve st i g at ors

, were c o n s i d e r e d a pri o r i

to carry the greatest potential ris k with res p ect to ast h m a exacerbati ons (Tabl e 3). T o m i nim i ze m u ltico lin earity as well as ex cessi v e statistical testin g

, we k e p t t

h e list as sho r t as po ssi b l e. We includ ed d a ily

m a xim u m ei ght -h o u r m ovi ng ave ra g e O 3 , daily m ean NO 2 and SO 2 , da i l y 2 4 -hour a v era g e FR M PM 2.5 ,

dai l y one

- h o u r m a xim u m PM 2.5 , dai l y 24 -ho u r ave r age PM 10-2.5 (i.e., c o arse PM, t h e partic ulate m a tter

fract i o n bet w ee n PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), PM 2.5 s u lfate, PM 2.5 , PM 2.5 acidity (H + ), PM 2.5 elem ental carbon

(“so ot”) , PM 2.5 or g a n i c car bon , t o tal PM 2.5 m e ta ls (predo m i n a tely n i ck el and iro n ), to tal carbon yl

com pounds (predom i nately form alde hyde, acetalde hy de a n d acetone), total pollen and t o tal m o ld spores

.

Each “po llu tan t ” was tested in div i d u a lly in t h e Po isso n regression m o d e l to assess th e i n d e p e n d e n t h ealth

i m p acts o f each air q u ality p a ram eter.

At

i ssue earl y o n was w h et h e r s e pa rat e m odel s w o ul d be fit for th e t w o stud y sites, o r wh ether a con s isten t

m odel form (e.g

., t h e c h oi ces o f de gree s of free d om for spl i n e s on co nf o u n d i n g va ri abl e s) sh o u l d be

ap p lied to bo th sites. Fo r in stan ce, i n co m p arin g th e res p o n se o f pol l u t a nt s bet w ee n L o s A n g e l e s an d Ne w

York City, it wou l d be ex p ected th at season al p a tte rns a n d tem p erature de pend e n cies would differ and

co u l d thu s req u i re sep arate m o d els. In con t rast, for t w o co m m u n ities with in New York City, it is no t

ob vi o u s w h y se parat e m odel s w o ul d be re q u i r e d

. Fu rt he r, t h e go al o f c o m p ari n g ai r p o l l u t i o n ef fect s ac ross



### 18th e two co mm u n ities arg u e d for u s i n g a co n s isten t m o d e l. Accord i n g l y, fo r the m a in an alyses, an i d en tical

m o d e l fo rm was u s ed in b o t h co mm u n ities, with con f ou nd i n g v a riab les h a n d l ed as no ted ab ove, and with

th e air po llu tan t ex pressed as th e m ean o f lag s zero thr oug h f our . In o th e r w ord s, w e exp r essed air po llu tio n

expos u re s as t h e five-day m ean ending on the corre s p o ndi ng day o f ast h m a dat a

. We c h ose t o use t h e m ean

of

l a gs ze r o t h ro u g h f o ur based i n part o n prev i o us st u d i e s t h at s u ggest e d t h at m o st ast h m a ED vi si t s occ u r

2 4 to 72 h ours fo llowing t h e o n s et of sym p to m s (Can n y et al. 19 89 ). In add itio n, ex p l o r at o r y an alyses

in d icated th at po sitiv e asso ciatio n s tend ed to ex ist w ith in t h is lag ran g e bu t the p a ttern of lags d i ffered

som e what acr oss l o cat i o ns. B y a v era g i n g acro ss rel e va nt l a gs

, we s o ug ht t o sm oot h o u t t h ese pat t e r n s a n d

t h ere b y p r o v i d e a c o nsi s t e nt basi s f o r c o m p ari s on acr oss l o cat i o ns. Det a i l s on t h e e x pl or at ory a n al y s es of

l a g de pe nde ncy a re prese n t e d b e l o w, u nde r R e s u l t s

.



### 19

### 20Section 3

RESULTS

The num b er of ast h m a and c ont rol E D visits and t h e t o tal nu m b er of v i sits b y h o sp ital are enu m erated in

Tabl e 1. T h e ho s p i t a l

- speci fi c E D dat a p r esent e d here m a y i n cl ude dat a f o r

resi dent s f r om bot h st u d y a r eas,

si nce re si de nt s f r om t h e B r o nx m a y have vi si t e d a M a nhat t a n h o s p i t a l an d vi ce ve rsa. I n c o n s t r uct i n g

an alytical d a tasets, th ese d a ta were sep a rated b y resi d e n tial lo cation in to t w o sep a rate ED d a ta files.

Av erag e d a ily asth m a ED v i sits d i ffered su b s tan tially fo r residen t s of th e two st u d y co mm u n ities (Tab le 2 )

.

Ove r al l

, dai l y ast h m a ED vi si t s w e re si x t i m es hi ghe r i n t h e B r on x st udy a r ea (4 3 pe r day ) t h an i n t h e

M a nhat t a n st udy area ( 7

. 2 per day )

. To p u t t h ese n u m b ers i n p e rs pect i v e, Tabl e 2 al so gi ves t h e C e ns us

2 000 p opu latio n coun ts in t h e two stud y areas. By d i v i d i n g th e d a ily asth m a co un ts b y th e p opu lation

, we

can estim ate crude daily rates of asthm a ED visits overall and by sex and a g e for eac h com m unity. The

cr ud e d a ily asth m a ED r a tes f o r all ag es w e r e 16.9 p e r 10 0,0 00 p e r s on s f o rth e Bro n x and 2

. 02 p e r 10 0,000

p e rson s for Manh attan. Pop u l ation ag e st ru ctures were qu ite d i fferen t in th e t w o co mm u n ities, with larg er

p r op or tio ns o f y o ung er p e r s o n s in t h e B r onx ver s u s Manh attan ( F igu r e 6)

.

M eans a n d st an dar d de vi at i ons f o r

t h e 1 4 key ai r c o nt am i n ant s are gi ve n i n Ta bl e 3

. In ge ner a l , m ean

conce n trations we re fairly sim i lar across the tw o c o m m unities. Exceptions include d m a xim u m eight-hour

O 3 , wh ich was 33% h i gh er in the B r onx (28 p arts p e r b illio n

, pp b) t h an in Manh attan (21 pp b), and to tal

pol l e n

, whi c h w a s al m o st 6 0 % hi g h er i n t h e B r o n x ( 2 0. 8 grai n s / m 3 ) th an in Manh attan (13

. 1 g r ai n s /m 3 ).

The di st ri b u t i o n s of p o l l e n a nd m o l d c once n t r at i o ns we re hi ghl y ske w e d ( d at a not sh o w n ) , w i t h m a ny day s

o f

zero s and b r ief p e riod s of v e ry h i gh lev e ls. M o re d e tailed an alysis of t h e air qu ality d a ta and t h e

d i fferen ces acro ss co mm u n ities is p r esen ted in Part A.

SINGLE -POLL U TANT MODELS

Tabl e 4 a n d Fi g u r e 7 prese n t rel a t i v e ri s k s (R R s ) a n d 9 5 % co nfid en ce i n terv als (CIs) fo r Manh attan an d th e

Br on x fo r th e 1 4 air con t am inants. Relative ris k s a r e c o m puted relative to a fi xe d “increm e nt” in

cont am i n ant con c e n t r at i o n. T h e C I s o n t h e R R s were c o m put ed base d o n t a ki n g pl us o r m i nus

1. 96 × SD(re g ressi on slope) and t h e n re -com puting RRs at each of t h e CI bounds. Fo r the results prese n ted

i n Ta bl e 4a

, we have u s ed t h e t w o

- com m uni t y m ean co nce n t r at i o n s gi ve n i n Ta bl e 3 as t h e expos u r e

increm ent. It should be note d that t h e c hoice of c once n tration i n crem ents use d t o c o m pute the RRs is an

arb itrary on e. Th e m ean is a co mm o n ch o i ce. Howev e r, RRs b a sed on v a riab ility m etrics, su ch as t h e

st anda rd de vi at i o n of dai l y p o l l u t i o n c oncent r at i o ns , m a y be m o re ap pr op ri at e f o r

ex p r essi ng heal t h i m pact s

associated with ty pical day-t o -day cha n ges i n c ontam in an t co ncen tration s an d fo r co m p arin g t h e st reng th o f

effects am o n g po llu tan t s who s e ab so lu te ai r con c en tration s d i ffer. To illu strate t h is, we re-co m p u t ed t h e



### 21RRs and 9 5 % confid en ce in terv als fo r t h e fiv e po llu tan t s with sign ifican t RRs i n t h e Bron x b a sed on the

t w o

- com m uni t y avera g e st a nda rd de vi at i o n of t h e resp ectiv e air po llu tan t co ncen t r atio n (Table 4b ).

Changing t h e scaling i n crem ent in this way does not a ffect the statistical signi ficance of the RRs.

The res u lts in Ta ble 4a indicate that t h e i ndi vidual co n t am in an ts with statistical ly significant e f fects (base d

o n th e 95 % C I ex clud ing RR=1.00) in th e B r onx w e r e Max 8 h r O 3 (R R 1. 06; 95% C I 1

. 0 1 –1.10), N O 2 (RR

1. 10; 9 5 % C I 1. 01 –1

. 1 8 ), SO 2 ( R R 1. 11; 9 5 % C I 1. 06 –1.1 7 ) , FR M PM 2.5 (R R 1. 0 5; 9 5% C I 1. 0 1–1.10),

an d Max PM 2.5 (R R 1. 09; 9 5 % C I 1. 03 –1. 1 5 )

. Al t h o u g h t h e m a gni t ude s of t h e R R est i m at es i n M a nhat t a n

were often sim i lar to tho s e o b s erv e d in th e B r onx

, no statistically sig n i fican t air po llu tion effects were

obs er ved f o r

M a n h at t a n.

Whe n t h e st a nda r d devi at i o n i n c r em ent was use d fo r t h e fi ve p o l l u t a nt s wi t h si gni fi ca nt R R s i n Ta bl e 4a

,

th e relativ e m a g n itud e s of th e po llu tan t -sp eci fic RRs decrease d c o m p ared with the RRs base d on the m ean

increm ent (Table 4b ). Whe n standard deviation i n crem ents we re used, t h e SO 2 e f f ect s t an d s ou t a s th e

larg est o f tho s e p o l l u tan t s that were statistically sig n i fican t i n th e Bro n x

.

In additional expl oratory analyses, we exam ined whet her m a xim u m hou rl y co ncent r at i o n s of N O 2 or SO 2

or m a xim u m three-hour elem en tal (soo t) carb on o r or ganic ca rbon (agai n , ave r age d over lag ze ro to four

day s ) y i el de d su b s t a nt i a l l y di ffe re nt res u l t s t h a n were o b se rve d a b o v e f o r 24-hour m e a n c once n t rat i o ns

.

Table 5 s h ows these res u lts. Slightly stronger ass o ci atio n s were o b serv ed for th ese d a ily m a x i m u m resu lts

fo r NO 2 and elem en tal car bo n in t h e Bron x th an w e r e ob ser v ed u s i n g th e 24 hour m ean s ( T ab le 4 a )

. In

cont rast wi t h t h e dai l y -m ean el em ent a l carb o n ef fect , t h e m a xim u m t h ree-hour el em ent a l carb o n

association attained statistical significance

.

CO NFO U NDE R EFFE CTS

As not e d a b ove , t h e basi c P o i sso n reg r essi on m odel i n cl u d ed a si ngl e p o l l u t a nt al on g wi t h t h ree

“confounder” va riables: a na tu ral sp lin e fun c tion o f d a te with 18 d e gr ees of fr eed o m , a natu r a l sp lin e of

t e m p erat ure wi t h 3 de gre e s of f

r eed om and a wee k day t e rm . To as sess t h e i m port a nce o f t h e s e c o n f ou n d er

varia b les, we exam ined the c ont ribu tion of each va riable t o the m odel in term s of its ability to e xplain

v a riation s i n ED v i sits. As an ex am p l e, we p r esen t these resu lts for t h e O 3 m odel i n t h e B r on x i n Tabl e 6. In

t h e ge ne ral i zed l i n ea r m odel i n g f r am ewor k of S-Pl u s , t h e va ri ance ex pl ai ne d by a varia b le is c h aracterize d

by t h e de vi ance di vi de d by t h e de grees o f free d om (Kaz It o, p e rso n al c o m m uni cat i on). As see n i n Ta bl e 6

,

for th e sing le-p o ll u tan t m o d e l in clud i n g O 3 , t h e dat e a n d week day vari a b l e s we re t h e st r o nge st p r edi c t o rs of

asth m a ED v i sits, fo llowed b y O 3 itself.

Tem p erature had a very l o w explanat ory powe r i n the O 3 m odel

, i m pl yi ng t h at i t was pr o b abl y n o t

necessa ry to be i n cluded as a cova riate. T o e x am ine what influe nce t h e inclusion o f t e m p erat ure ha d on k e y



### 22air po llu tion r e gr ession r e su lts, w e r e

- r a n th e regr ession s of ast h m a ED v i sits o n SO 2 , ma x i mu m P M 2.5 and

O 3 wit h ou t tem p eratu r e i n t h e m o d e ls. Th ere were no im p o r tan t ch an ges in th e RR esti m a tes fo r th ese

p o llu tan t s with ou t tem p eratu r e i n t h e m o d e ls (Tab le 7). Ho wev e r, in th e in terest o f being co n s erv a tiv e,

te mp e r a t u r e w a s r e ta in ed as a cov a r i a t e in all o t h e r resu lts presen ted h e re.

SEA S ONA L AND THR E SHOLD ANA LY SES

Because bioae r osols, SO 2 an d O 3 a r e sea sonal c ontam inants that reach hi gh airborne c once n trations

p r im arily in th e warm (b io aero so ls and O 3 ) or cold ( S O 2 ) seas on i n New York City, we re-estim ated these

effects i n a d ata sub s et rest ricted to th e relev ant seas on . In ad d ition t o elimin atin g so m e statist ical n o ise th at

m a y be i n t r od uce d by i n cl udi ng n o n -pe a k seas on d a t a , seas on al rest ri ct i on al s o ca n hel p re d u ce re si d u al

con f ou n d i n g by seas onal pat t e r n s (B u r net t et al . 1 9 9 4 ) . Fo r SO 2 , there w a s n o c h ang e in r e s u lts w h en w e r e

r a n th e r e gr ession w ith i n a w in ter d a ta su b s et (data no t sho w n), an d th ese r e sults ar e no t d iscu s sed fu r t h e r.

In the case of O 3 , t h e basi c regr essi o n m odel w a s re-run usi n g dat a f

o r

t h e sev e n-m ont h pe ri o d A p ri l 1

t h r o u g h Oct o ber 3 1

, w h i c h y i el ded a l a r g er an d m o re si gni fi ca nt R R i n t h e B r o n x ( 1

. 0 8; 95% C I 1. 0 3–1.12)

but a

sm al l e r R R i n M a nhat t a n ( 1

. 0 4; 9 5 % C I 0. 9 1–1.1 9 ) f o r a 24 p p b cha n ge i n O 3 co n cen tration (Tab le

4a). T h ese res u lts are c o ntraste d to those obtai ned for O 3 in th e fu ll-year an alysis o f t

h e Bro nx (1 .06 ; 95 %

CI 1.01– 1.10) an d Manh attan (1.06 ; 9 5 % CI 0.93– 1

. 20) fo r a 24 p p b ch an g e i n O 3 conc e n t r at i o n . B a se d on

these re sults, it woul d a ppea r that the warm -season e ffect of O 3 on E D vi si t s f o r ast h m a i s about t w i ce as

h igh in th e B r o nx as it is in Man h a ttan

, althou gh t h e Bronx CI i n cludes t h e Ma nhattan RR estim a t e.

Furt her, becaus e the RR re pres ents t h e proportional inc r ease in asthm a ED visits ass o ciated wit h a fixe d

increase i n O 3 (he r e, 24 ppb), a n d becaus e a v era g e ast h m a ED visits were six tim es highe r in the Bronx

study a r ea tha n i n t h e Manha ttan area, the num b er of O 3 -rel a ted ED v i sits in th e B r onx wou l d b e estim a t ed

to b e abou t 12 tim es h i g h e r t h an in Manh attan

.

To i nvestigate whethe r there was evi d ence for O 3 ef f ect s bel o w a dai l y m a xi m u m ei ght -hour m o vi n g

av erag e o f 80 ppb—th e N a tio nal A m b i en t A i r Qu ality Stan d a rd—w e rep eated th e su mm er-seaso n

regression after eli m in atin g d a ys with con c en tration s abo v e th is level. Th ere were on ly fiv e su ch d a ys in

th e Bro n x du r ing th e st ud y p e r iod ( f e w e r th an 1 % o f all d a ys). Th e O 3 RR from this reg r essi on m odel (RR

1. 09; 9 5 % C I 1. 03 –1

. 1 5 ) was si m i l a r t o t h at obt ai ne d a b ove fo r t h e sum m e r-seaso n reg r essi o n o v er t h e f u l l

conce n t rat i o n ra nge (R R

. 1. 08; 9 5 % C I 1. 03 –1.1 2 )

.

We als o re -ra n r e gres sio n s fo r selected p o llen a n d m o ld categories with i n warm -season d a ta su bsets (Tab le

8). T h e results from the seasonal a n alysis di d not di ffer fro m th e resu lts ob served in t h e fu ll an nu al

analysis, with RR estim a t es gene rally close t o 1.00. Because of the highly epis odic tem poral patterns of

p o llen and m o ld con cen tratio n s ob serv ed i n th is stud y, regressi o n m o d e lin g m a y n o t represen t th e op tim a l



### 23analytical strategy for a n alyzing h ealth effects of these contam inants. Howeve r, beca use t h e foc u s of the

p r esen t repo rt is on ai r p o llu tan t s an d th eir effects on asth m a , we d i d no t pursu e th is issu e furth e r.

LAG DEPENDENCY OF SINGLE -POLLUT A NT MODELS

Ex pl orat ory reg r essi on anal y s i s of t h e B r o n x a n d M a n h at t a n d a t a reveal e d di st i n ct di ffe rence s bet w ee n t h e

t w o re gi o n s i n ast h m a effect s as a fu nct i o n of l a g. T h is ob serv ation pro m p t ed a m o re t h oro u gh inv e stig atio n

o f

th e lag stru ctures i n each co mm u n ity, with testin g o f l a gs fr om zero t o f o u r day s

. Thi s app r oac h i s

co nsisten t with past stud ies in dicating th at ED ho sp ital v i sits fo r asth m a p eak fo r p a tien t s with sym p to m s

b e g i n n i n g 24 to 7 2 hou r s pr ior t o arr iv a l ( Can ny et al. 198 9)

.

To illu strate t h e o b serv ed lag stru ctu r es, Figu re 8 p l o t s th e sing le-lag relativ e risk s in t h e B r onx an d

Man h a ttan fo r three p o llu tan ts (PM 2.5 , S O 2 an d O 3 ), w i t h e r r o r b a rs re prese n t i n g 95 % C I s . A s bef o re, t h e

R R fo r eac h c ont am i n ant was cal cul a t e d f o r

a c onc ent r at i o n i n crem ent co rres p ondi ng t o t h e m ean

co n tam in an t co ncen tration in Manh attan and th e Bro n x

, gi ven i n Tabl e 3, wi t h t h e sam e conce n t r at i o n used

fo r bot h c o m m uni t y R R s (t h u s, al l di f f ere n ces i n t h e R R s bet w ee n t h e t w o a r eas a r i s e fr om di ffere nces i n

the calculated re gre ssion slopes ). The data suggest diffe rences e x ist bet w een t h e t w o areas and am ong

contam inants in t h e la g-depe ndencies of t h e re sponses. PM 2.5 p r o duced a m a x i m u m r e sp on se in t h e Bron x

at

a zer o- day l a g

, but i n M a nhat t a n at a one -day l a g. S O 2 pr o d u ce d a m a xi m u m response i n t h e B r on x at a

tw o- d a y lag

, and in Manh a ttan at a three-d a y lag. O 3 m a xim u m B r on x re sp on se occ u r r ed at a one -day l a g,

whe r eas i n Manhattan the res p onse dec r ease d s h ar pl y f r om zero

- t o f o ur -day l a gs.

Fo r th e 14 con t amin an ts listed i n Tab l e 3

, t h e analysis o f lag s zero t o fou r yield e d t h ree statistically

si gni fi ca nt R R s f o r a s p eci fi c

- day l a g i n t h e B r on x, an d o n e i n M a n h at t a n. I n t h e B r o n x

, NO 2 was

significa nt at a ze ro

- d a y l a g

, ma x i mu m P M 2.5 was significant at a four-day la g a n d SO 2 was sign ifican t at a

two-d a y lag

. In Manh attan

, d a ily av erag e PM 2.5 was si gn ifican t at a on e-d a y l a g (Figu r e 8, n o t all d a ta

shown).

Because the patterns of lag-depe nden cy differe d am ong poll u tants a n d lo cations, choosing a single-day la g

to app l y un ifo r m l y to bo th co m m u n ities wou l d h a v e a profou nd im p act o n t h e co n c l u sion s reg a rd ing t h e

d i fferen ces in air po llu tion effects acro ss th e two co mm u n ities. In an effo rt to m itig ate th is p r o b l em

,

co m p ariso n s acro s s co mm u n ities p r esen ted in t h is report were b a sed o n a m o d e l th at regressed ED v i sits o n

th e m u lti-d a y av erag e con cen tratio ns co m p u t ed o v e r lag s zero to fo ur for each air qu ality p a ram e ter (i.e., a

fi ve- d ay di st ri bu t e d l a g gi vi ng eq ual wei g ht t o t h e day of t h e E D vi si t an d t h e prece di n g f our day s ).

MULTI-POLL U TANT MODEL S

As n o t ed abo v e , sign ifican t sing le-p oll u tan t resu lts were seen for PM 2.5 , O 3 , NO 2 and S O 2 in the B r onx

d a taset. We so ugh t to inv e stig ate wh et h e r th ese i n d i v i du al p o llu tan t effects were ind e p e nd en t of o n e



### 24anot her

, or o n t h e ot her ha n d , w h et he r resul t s f o r i ndi vi d u al p o l l u t a nt s we re c o nf ou n d ed by om i ssi on of

ot he r pol l u t a nt s. T h i s i s s u e can be a d dres sed by i n cl ud ing two or m o re po llu tan t s sim u ltan e o u s ly in t o th e

reg r essi o n m odel a n d e x am i n i ng w h et he r t h e p o l l u t a nt -s pe cific e ffects c h a nge com p are d with the si nglep o llu tan t m o d e ls presen ted ab ove.

Pairs o f con t am in an ts with si g n i fican t effects i n th e sing le-p o l l u tan t m o d els were tested sim u ltan eo u sly in

t h e ba si c m odel t h at i n cl ude d c o nt r o l s f o r

dat e

, t e m p erat ure an d day o f wee k

. We re po rt i n T a bl e 9 t h e

relativ e risk an d 95 % CI for t h ese resu lts fo r the Bron x and Manh attan

. To assist in in terp retation o f th ese

resu lts, Tab le 1 0 g iv e s th e correlation s am o n g th e ind iv idu al po llu tan t co n centration s

.

Fo r th e Bro n x

, co-po llu tan t regression resu lts for O 3 and S O 2 were ro bu st to all o t h e r po llu tan t s con s id ered

(Tab le 9). Th e un iv ariate O 3 RR w a s 1.06 ( T ab le 4) ; w ith co

- p o ll u tan ts, t h e RR r a ng ed f r o m 1

. 04 to 1.06

.

Th e un iv ariate SO 2 RR w a s 1.11 ( T ab le 4) ; w ith co

- p o l l u tan ts, t h e RR r a ng ed f r o m 1

. 09 to 1.11 . FRM

PM 2.5 was robust to O 3 bu t no t t o o t h e r co-p ollu tan t s tested (RR 1

. 0 5 in bo th un iv ariate and biv a riate O 3

m odel s ; R R redu ced t o a p pr oxi m a t e l y 1.00 wi t h ot her co -pol l u t a nt m odel s ). T h e hi gh co rrel a t i o n bet w ee n

FRM PM 2.5 a n d ma x i mu m P M 2.5 mad e it d i fficu lt to assess th eir relativ e im p o r tan ce. Still, th e resu lts i n

Tabl e 9 do su gg est t h at m a xi m u m PM 2.5 was th e stron g e r p r edictor o f asth m a ED v i sits i n th is stud y.

Com p ared with t h e effects of co-p ollu tan t s on RRs fo r FRM PM 2.5 , t h e ma x i mu m P M 2.5 R R s di d not

d i min i sh to th e sam e ex ten t when co-p ollu tan t s were factored in. T h is robust ness argues for a greater

i nde pen d e n t i m pact of m a xim u m PM 2.5 concent r at i o ns c o m p ared wi t h 2 4 -hour a v er age PM 2.5 . NO 2 effec t s

were r o bust t o O 3 bu t were no t robu st to t h e o t h e r p o llu tan t s. As was seen fo r th e sing le-p o llu t a n t resu lts

p r esen ted earlier, n o n e o f th e Manh atta n resu lts were statistically sig n i fican t.

To s u mm arize the results pr esente d in Ta ble 9, the O 3 effect on d aily asth m a ED v i sits was robu st t o

i n cl usi o n of t h e ot her p o l l u t a nt s i n t o t h e m odel . T h e SO 2 effect wa s also robust. PM 2.5 exhi b i t e d s o m e what

less robustne ss. Of the two PM 2.5 me t r i c s

, ma x i mu m h o u r l y P M 2.5 was th e m o re ro bu st. No te th at i n threep o llu tan t m o d e ls in clud i n g O 3 , S O 2 an d ma x i m u m P M 2.5 , the RRs fo r O 3 , ma x i mu m P M 2.5 and S O 2 effec t s

rem a i n ed vi rt ual l y unc ha nge d f r o m t h ei r u n i v a ri a t e m a gni t udes

. NO 2 ef fects w e r e r obu st o n ly to in clusion

of

O 3 i n th e m o d e l.

ANALYSIS OF CONT ROL VARIABLES

To e v aluate t h e s p ecificity of the air polluti on effects obse rved for asth m a visits, we re peated the a n alysis

of

fi ve key ai r p o l l u t a nt s wi t h c ont rol

- ca use ED vi si t s as the outcom e varia b le. If t h ere was no a ssociation

with air po llu tion

, on e wou ld exp ect no n-sign ifican t RRs cen ter e d at 1.00 fo r t

h e con t ro l ou tco m e. Resu lts

fo r t h e B r on x an d M a nhat t a n are p r ese n t e d i n Ta bl e 11

. Of th e fiv e po llu tan t s t h at h a d sign ifican t un iv ariate

effects on asthm a in the Bronx, one, FRM PM 2.5 , h a d si gni fi ca nt ef fect s o n t h e co nt r o l out com e i n t h e

Bron x. Po sitiv e bu t non -si g n i fican t effects were seen for th e rem a in in g po llu tan ts, ex cep t O 3

. Ther e was no



### 25evide n ce of any e ffect of O 3 on co nt r o l E D c o u n t s

. A n al y s i s o f M a nhat t a n co nt r o l out c o m e dat a sh owe d a

si m ilar b u t so m e wh at weak er po sitiv e b i as fo r the sam e fiv e po llu tan t s.

To det e rm i n e w h et her pat i e nt s di a g n o se d wi t h o n e of t h e st udy co nt r o l co n d i t i ons al so ha d a sec o n d ary

d i agn o sis of ast h m a , ad d ition a l d i ag no sis cod e s were ex am in ed for t h e n i n e hosp itals fro m wh ich th e d ata

were available. T h e nine hos p itals had re ported a t o tal of 193, 300 em ergency depa rtm e nt visits, including

11 ,4 5 1 ast h m a vi si t s (i .e., ast h m a as pri n ci pal di ag no si s) a n d 1 1 ,0 8 7 c ont rol v i si t s (i .e.

, on e o f t

h e c ont rol

conditions as pri n cipal dia g nosis). A total of 49 E D visits were m ade by patients with a c ontrol conditi on as

the princi pal dia g nosis a n d a secondary diagnosis of asthm a

, accounting for 0. 4% of patients diagnose d

with o n e of t h e co n t ro l con d ition s . Th e con tro l co nd itio ns for wh ich th is was m o st freq u e n tly th e case were

n on-in fectiou s g ast ro en teritis (ICD9 = 558 ; N = 1 3 ), urin ary tract infection (ICD9 = 599 ; N = 1 1 ), and

u l cer s ( I C D9 = 53 1– 535 ; N = 7). Secon d ar y ast h m a d i ag no ses do n o t app ear t o b e a lik ely con t r i bu t o r t o

t h e o b se rve d t r en d o f c ont r o l

- ou t c om e R R s > 1 fo r t h e fi ve ai r p o l l u t a nt s i n vest i g at ed i n t h e B r o n x

.

ANALYSIS OF SE X

- SPE C IFI C RESP ONSE S

To e x am i n e whet her m a l e s and fem a l e s resp on de d di f f ere n t l y t o pol l u t i o n , w e re peat e d t h e basi c ge neral

lin ear m o d e lin g fo r fi v e k e y p o llu tan ts in d a ta sub s ets stratified b y sex. Larg er and / or m o re sign ifican t RRs

i n o n e sex o r t h e ot her w o ul d b e t a ke n as e v i d e n ce fo r d iff er ential r e spo n s es. Resu lts of t h e stratified

analysis are pre sente d in Ta bles 12a (the Bronx) an d 12b ( M anh a ttan )

. I n th e B r onx , t h e RRs w e r e larg er

an d m o re sign ifican t fo r fem a les th an for m a les fo r all po llu tan t s ex cep t O 3 . Resu lts i n Man h a ttan were

g en e rally similar, with h i gh er RRs for fem ales (ex cep t for O 3 ), t h o ugh n o n e of th e RRs were statistically

sig n i fican t . Th ese resu lts su gg est that fem a le asth m a tics m a y b e m o re su scep tib le th an m a les to t h e acu t e

effects of air poll u tion.

AN ALY SIS OF AGE

- SPE C IFI C RESP ONSE S

Heal t h dat a w e re b r o k e n do w n by age g r o u p fo r reg r essi on agai nst eac h of fi ve key p o l l u t a nt s (Ta b l e s 13a

and 13b). Age was s p lit into five st rata, 0–4, 5–18, 19–34, 35–64, a nd ove r 65. Beca use the num b ers of

cases in eac h age stratum were relatively sm all for thes e analyses (refe r to Table 2), t h ere was consi d era b le

v a riab ility in resu lts acro ss ag es. Althou gh so m e o f t

h e larg est RRs o c cu rred in th e v e ry yo ung and v e ry

ol d, f o r

m o st pol l u t a nt s i t was t h e ol der a d ul t age g r o u p (3 5 –64) t h at a p peared t o have l a rg er a n d m o re

si gni fi ca nt ef fect s. These fi ndi n g s s h o u l d be t a ke n as on ly su gg estiv e, how ever , sin c e stud y pow er w a s

li mited for testing effects with in age strata. Larg er st u d i e s wo ul d be neede d t o deri ve fi rm concl u si on s

about a g e-s p ecific e ffe cts.



### 26Section 4

DIS C USSI ON

Thi s st udy e v al uat e d dai l y ast h m a em ergency de pa rt m e nt vi si t s i n rel a t i o n t o a ra n g e of ai r c o nt am i n ant s

o v e r a two

- year p e riod i n two co mm u n ities th at d i ffere d su bstan tially in b a selin e asth m a m o rb i d ity – Lo wer

M a nhat t a n an d t h e S o ut h B r o n x

. Pri m ary ob ject i v es were id entifying wh ich air po llu tan t s were m o st

co nsisten tly asso ciated with asth m a ED v i sits and c o m p ari ng t h e m a gni t ude o f air pollution effects across

th e two co mm u n ities. Th e st u d y d e sign d id n o t add r ess fact o r s in fl u e ncing asth m a p r ev alen ce o r

devel opm ent of newl y di ag nos ed ast h m a

.

In Poi s s o n reg r essi on m odel s t h at i n cl ude d c ont r o l s f o r

l o nger

- t e rm an d day

- of-week t e m poral cy cl es a n d

te m p erature

, five of 14 key air contam inants were si gn ifican tly asso ciated with d a ily asth m a ED v i sits at

t h e P < 0 .0 5 l e v e l i n t h e B r o n x c o m m uni t y onl y . Si g n i f i cant p o l l u t a nt s i n cl ud e d dai l y ei ght -hour m a xi m u m

O 3 , m ean daily N O 2 , SO 2 , P M 2.5 a n d m a xim u m one-hou r PM 2.5 , all e x pressed as the m ean of la gs ze ro to

four. In secondary a n alyses of effects for pe ak hourly SO 2 and NO 2 con c e n t r at i o ns o r peak t h ree-hour

ele m en tal ( s oo t) car bon an d or gan ic carb on , all bu t or gan ic car bon w e r e sign ificantly ass o ciated with

asth m a v i sits.

In t w o- a n d t h ree-p o l l u t a nt re gressi on m odel s

, O 3 , S O 2 , a n d t o a l e sse r e x t e nt

, m a xim u m one-hour P M 2.5

were t h e m o st r o b u st pol l u t a nt s. I n ot he r wo rds , t h ese pol l u t a n t s e xhi bi t e d l e ss cha n ge i n t h ei r ef fect

esti m ates as ad d itio n al po llu tan t s were ad d e d t o the m o d els. Th e relativ e risk fo r O 3 di d n o t c h an ge

app r eci abl y whe n we re peat ed t h e a n al y s i s aft e r el im i n at i ng al l day s wi t h m a xi m u m ei ght -hour m o vi n g

avera g e O 3 ab o v e 80 pp b, th e Nation a l Am b i en t Air Qu ality Stan d a rd. R o bu st effects o f O 3 have bee n see n

in prev iou s ED ast h m a stu d i es (Stieb et al. 19 96 ; Ma rtin s et al. 200 2) and in ho sp ital ad m i ssio n s stud ies o f

ast h m a and ot he r re spi r at ory di seases (B ur net t et

al

. 19 9 7 ). It i s o f part i c ul ar i n t e re st t h at we ob ser v ed m o re

robu st h ealth im p acts o f t

h e d aily m ax i m u m PM 2.5 conce n t r at i o n c o m p ared w i t h t h e 24 -hour m e a n

,

suggesting t h at peak exposures m a y have large r hea lth im p acts. Prio r stud ies h a ve also su gg ested th at

stronge r as sociations betwee n partic ulate m a tter expos u re an d asth m a m o rb id ity are o b s erv e d with sho r ter

p articu l ate m atter av erag ing tim es (e.g ., Del f ino et al. 1998; Michael s and Kleinm an 2000).

Wh en t h e Bron x relativ e risk s an d 95 % con f iden ce in terv als were re-co m p u ted b a sed o n th e po llu tan t

st anda rd de vi at i o ns rat h er t h an o n m eans, S O 2 effects a p peare d m o re prom in en t th an th e o t her po llu tan t s.

RRs calcu lated u s ing t h e stan d a rd d e v i ation n o rm alize al l p o llu tan t con c en tration in crem en ts relativ e to

th eir o b s erv e d v a riab ility an d conv ey a b e tter sen s e of th e h ealth effects asso ciated with ty p i cal d a y-to -d ay

v a riation s i n con c en tration s

.



### 27Alth oug h con c en tration s o f air con t amin an ts were g e n e rally sim i lar in th e two co mm u n ities, h ealth im p acts

o f

air p o llu ti o n w e r e m o r e ap p a r e n t in t h e Br onx th an in Man h attan

. A m o n g t h e 1 4 po llu tan t s ex am in ed

i ndi vi dual l y i n re gres si o n a n al y s es, fi ve ha d st at i s t i cal l y si gni fi cant e ffect s on ast h m a ED vi si t s i n t h e

Bron x. Alth ou gh th e m a g n itud e s of th e RR estim a t es in Man h attan were often sim i lar to tho s e ob serv ed in

th e Bro n x

, no statisticall y si gnificant ai r c ontam inant effects wer e ob serv ed for Man h a ttan.

The m o re prom inent effe cts in t h e Bronx at least pa r tially reflect greater statis tical powe r for i d entifying

effects t h ere

. Because asthm a ED visits follow a Po iss o n distribution, the greater m ean daily asthm a ED

cou n t s i n t h e B r on x w oul d l ead t o re duce d rel a t i v e unce r tainty around t h e e ffect estim ates. This effect ca n

b e illu strated u s ing th e relativ e un certain ty o f th e esti m a te o f th e m ean o f a Po isso n d istri b u tion

. Fo r a

Poiss o n va riable, the va riance is equal to the m ean and is re ferred to as lam bda. T h e r efore

, by the Ce ntral

Li m it Th eo rem

, th e sam p lin g d i stribu tion o f the m ean lam b d a will h a v e v a rian ce equ a l to lam b d a /n , or a

standa rd er ro r o f the m ean equal t o s q rt (lam bda/n). E xpressed as t h e ratio of the stand a rd er ro r of th e m ean

to th e m ean , t h is b e co m e s

Sqrt (l am bda/ n )/ l a m bda = 1/ sqrt (l am bda* n )

Thu s

, fo r a fi x e d sam p le size n

, as lam b d a (t h e m ean ) in creases, th e un certain ty aroun d th e m ean esti m a te

relative to t h e m ean dim i nishes as 1/ sqrt(lam b d a ). In t h e p r esen t stud y, t h e relativ e u n c ertain ty of m ean (o r

effect) estim a t es in Manhattan is a b out 2.5 tim es great er t h an in the B r onx. T h is t r anslates int o greater

unce r tainty around e ffect e s timates a nd red u ce d po we r t o det ect e ffect s. Howev e r

, i n addi t i o n t o wi de r e r r o r

b a rs relativ e t o th e m ean , th e RRs i n Man h a ttan were also closer to 1.0 t h an those i n the Bronx for t h e five

p o llu tan ts th at wer e sign if ican tly r e lated to asth m a v i sits, wh ich d o e s suppo r t th e id ea th at eff ects m ig h t b e

larg er in t h e B r onx

.

In analyses restricted to t h e warm season (Ap r il thr oug h O c tober) , t h e O 3 RR in t h e B r onx was

ap pro x i m a tel y d o u b l e t h at o f Manh attan (alth oug h th e C I s ov erlap), sugg esting g r eater su scep ti b ility to th is

airway irritant and pro-inflam ma to ry agent i n the Bronx. Because the RR repre s ents t h e proportional

increase i n asthm a ED visits ass o ciated with a fi xed inc r ease i n O 3 (he r e

, 24 ppb), a n d because ave r a g e

ast h m a ED vi si t s we re si x t i m es hi ghe r i n t h e B r o n x st udy a r ea t h an i n t h e M a nhat t a n area , t h e num be r of

O 3 - r elated ED visits in t h e Br onx wou l d b e esti m a ted to b e abou t 1 2 ti m e s h i g h er t h an in Manh attan

.

A v a riety of factors co u l d co n t ri bu te to d i fferen ces in su scep tib ility to air p o llu ti o n effects as m easu r ed b y

asth m a e m erg e n c y d e p a rtm e n t v i sits acro s s th e t w o st ud y co mm u n ities, if su ch d i fferen c es ex ist. Fact o r s

that might play a role incl ude di ffe rential access t o prim ary asthm a care, nutriti onal differe n ces, c o -m orbid

co nd itio ns o r o t her factors related t o g en e ral socio-ec ono m i c statu s . Lack o f a d equ ate p r im ary asth m a care

may lead to h igh er b a selin e asth m a m o rb i d ity an d to gr eater use of the ED as t h e fi rst line of care during a



### 28severe exac er bat i o n

. Al o n g wi t h ot her com m uni t y -l ev el factors, s u ch as nut ritio n a l status an d co

m o rb id ities, th is co u l d m an i fest as a greater p r op ortion a l resp onse to a g i v e n in crease i n air po llu tan t lev e ls.

Data were no t av ailab l e to ev alu a te t h ese h y p o th eses in th is report.

Variation in effects of unm easured co-pollutants

, s u c h as i ndoor alle rge n s, environm enta l tobacco sm oke or

local traffic and i n dustrial em issi ons, m i ght al so i n fl ue nce t h e a ppa rent di f f ere n ces i n ac ut e ast h m a ED

respon ses t o am b i en t air p o llu ti o n ob serv ed in th e two co mmu n ities. In creased expo su re t o su ch lo cal

measured polluta nts could di rectly increase baseli ne asth m a m o rb id ity an d m i g h t also ind i rectly in crease

th e respo n se to ch ang e s i n am b i en t air p o llu ta nt s by i n cr easi n g ai r w ay i n fl am m a t i on an d hy pe rresponsive ness t o ac ute airway irritants. Data were not a v ailable to a d dres s thes e possi ble effe cts i n this

rep o rt.

Analyses by sex s u gge sted t h at the ai r pollution e f fects in t h e Bronx we re greater am ong fem ales than

males. Medical utilization for ac ute asthm a exacerbatio ns has bee n obse r ved t o be greater for fem a les

am ong ad ul t s , a n d great er f o r

m a l e s am ong ch i l d re n (e. g

. , Sch a t z a n d C a m a rgo 2 0 0 3 ; Sc hat z et al

. 2 0 0 4 )

.

Schatz et al. (2004) conclude d that i n crea sed as th m a h o s p italizatio n am o n g bo ys was a reflectio n of

pre v alence rat h er t h a n inc r ease d ast h m a severity in bo ys v e rsu s g i rls. However, the larg er relativ e in crease

in acu te ED v i sits o b serv ed in fem a les in th is st ud y with fix e d in crem en tal in creases i n air p o llu tan t

conce n t r at i o ns su g g est s po ssi bl e se x di f f ere n ces d u e t o fact ors ot her tha n pre v alence , s u c h as differe n ces i n

severity, disease m a nagem e nt or access t o ca re. Data we re not a v ailable to furt he r e v aluate this hypothesis

in th is report.

No strong differe n ces i n e ffects we re obse r ved with ag e strata, tho ugh th ere was so m e in d icatio n of larg er

effects i n olde r a dults but not the el derly. Differe n ces in t h e respon se o f adu lts an d ch ildren wit h ast h m a to

di ffe re nt ai r p o l l u t i o n ex p o s u res ha ve bee n obse r ved i n stud ies d e sign ed to inv e stig ate ag e-related effects

(e.g ., At k i n s o n et al. 19 99 ; Si n c lair an d To lsm a 2 004 ). In t h e p r esen t stu d y , our ab ility to reso l v e ag erelated d i fferen ces in asth m a respon se t o air p o llu tio n e x p o s u re m a y have been t o o l i m i t e d by t h e re qui red

stratified s u b-analyses.

To ev alu a te t h e sp ecificity o f th e air p o llu ti o n eff ects obse rved for asthm a visits, we analyzed the

rel a t i ons hi ps bet w een ai r p o l l u t a nt s a n d c ont rol

- cau se ED vi si t s

. O f t h e fi ve p o l l u t a nt s t h at h a d si gni fi ca nt

uni variate e ffects on asthm a in th e Bro n x

, on e, FRM PM 2.5 , ha d si gni fi ca nt ef fect s o n t h e con t r o l out c o m e

.

Po sitiv e bu t no n-si g n i fican t effects were seen for th e rem a in in g po llu tan t s, ex cep t O 3

. The r e was no

evide n ce of any e ffect of O 3 on co nt r o l E D c o u n t s

. The s e re sul t s c oul d s u ggest som e deg r ee of

o v e restim at in g risk i n th e an alysis.



### 29We ex p l o r ed th i s ap p a ren t risk o v e restim a tio n effect wit h ad d ition a l an alyses. Fo r tho s e ho sp itals wh ere a

seconda ry dia g nosis was available, th ere was no ind i catio n th at a d i ag no sis of asth m a secon d a ry to on e o f

th e con tro l co n d itio ns co n t rib u ted t o th e tend en cy t o ward p o sitiv e asso ciatio n s with con tro l o u tco m e s.

Wh en con t ro l cond itio n s were stratified b y organ system , th ere was a sim ilar ten d e n c y t o ward p o s itiv e

asso ciatio ns b e tween th e sam e fiv e p o llu tan t v a riab le s an d c ont rol co n d i t i ons g r o u p ed as gast r o i n t e st i n al or

uri n ary tract. Based on t h ese foll ow-u p a n alyses, we we re not a b le to disce r n a clea r e xpla n ation for the

ap p a ren t po sitiv e m o d e l b i as sugg ested b y th e an alysis of co n t ro l ou tco m e v a riab les.

In the c u rre n t study, si gni ficant ass o ciations were obse rve d betwee n ast h m a ED v i sits an d four criteria air

p o llu tan t s—O 3 , S O 2 , FRM PM 2.5 an d NO 2

. The res u lts f o r O 3 and SO 2 rem a in ed sign ifican t in m o d e ls

consideri n g the sim u ltaneous effects of two and three pollutants. Ot her recent studies have found similar

asso ciatio ns u s ing tim e-series m e th o d s sim i lar to tho s e use d h e re. H o we ve r, fi n d i n g ass o ci at i o ns bet w ee n

any of t h ese poll u tants a n d acute asthm a ED vi sits va ries am ong studies, as does the de gree to which

asso ciatio ns are rob u s t to i n clu s ion of ad d itio nal p o llu tan t s in t h e m o d e ls.

Ozone has been as sociated with ac ute asthm a ED vis its in several recen t stu d ies (Fau rou x et al. 2 000 ;

Gal a n et al

. 200 3; C a ssi n o et al

. 1 9 99; St i e b et al

. 2 0 0 0 ; Ja ffe et al

. 20 0 3 )

, but i t was n o t si gni fi cant l y

asso ciated with ED v i sits in sing le-p oll u tan t m o d els in a sim ilar n u m b er of st u d i es (Lierl an d Ho rn ung

20 0 3 ; At ki ns on et al

. 1 9 9 9 ; T o l b e r t et

al

. 2 000 ; T h om pson et al

. 20 0 1 ; Jal a l udi n et al

. 2 0 04; Si ncl a i r a n d

To lsm a 2 0 04). Th e associatio n ob serv ed in Galan et al. (2 00 3) rem a in ed sig n ifican t fo r O 3 after t h e

i n cl usi o n of NO 2 and p o llen. Stieb et al. ( 200 0) f oun d th at an asso ciation b e tw een O 3 an d all resp iratory ED

v i sits p e rsisted i n a m u lti-p o llu tan t m o d e l with NO 2 and SO 2 , b u t a sep a rate m u lti-p o llu tan t m o d e l fo r

ast h m a ED vi si t s wa s not re port e d. C o n v ersel y , i n cl usi o n o f O 3 in m u lti-p o llu tan t m o d e ls d i d no t m o d i fy

th e sign ifican t effect of SO 2 , NO 2 , PM 10 or CO (A tk i n so n et al. 1 999 ) or g r ass p o llen ( L ew is et al. 200 0)

,

suggesting t h at a n y ass o ciation betwee n O 3 and ac ute asthm a ED visits was sm all co m p ared with t h e othe r

p o llu tan ts in th ese stud ies.

In a m ajority of recent st udies, SO 2 has bee n si gnifica ntly associated w ith acu te asth m a ED v i sits in si n g l ep o llu tan t m o d e ls ( M ich a ud et al. 200 4 ; A t k i n s o n et al. 1 999 ; Stieb et al

. 2 0 0 0 ; To l b er t et al. 2000 ; Ch ew et

al. 19 99 ; Tho m p s o n et al. 2 0 0 1 ; Jaff e et al. 20 03 ; No rr is et al. 19 99 ), althou gh sev e r a l stud ies f a iled to

obs erve a significant as sociation (Fa u roux et al

. 2 000 ; G a lan et al. 20 03 ; Cassi n o et al. 1 999 ; Don ogh ue

an d Th o m as 1 999 ; Si n c lair an d To lsm a 2 004 )

. Th e SO 2 asso ciation p e rsisted in two

- p o llutant m o d e ls

i n cl udi ng N O 2 , O 3 , CO, P M 10 an d b lack sm o k e i n o n e stud y ( A tk i n so n et al. 1999 ) and w a s not m o d if ied b y

th e in clusion o f PM 1 ( i .e., u ltr af i n e PM) i n an o t h e r stud y ( M ich a ud et al. 20 04)

, bu t th e asso ciatio n w a s no t

r obu st to i n clu s i o n of PM 10 ( G alan et al. 200 3 ) o r b e n z en e ( T ho m p son et al. 2001) in o t h e r stud ies.



### 30Co m p ared with o t h e r criteria po llu tan t s, NO 2 an d ot he r ni t r og e n oxi des have b een i n cl u d e d i n fe wer rece nt

tim e -series analyses of ac ute ast h m a ED visits, but th ey ten d to sho w m i x e d resu lts in sing le-p o llu t a n t

m o d e ls, si m ilar to th e o v erall resu lts o b s erv e d fo r O 3 . S i gni fi ca nt ass o ci at i ons ha ve bee n rep o r t e d i n se veral

stu d i es (G alan et al. 200 3 ; A t k i n s o n et al. 1 9 9 9 ; To b e r t et al. 2000 ; Tho m p s o n et al. 2 001 ) b u t h a v e no t

been f o un d i n ot he rs ( F a u r o u x et al

. 2 0 00; C a ssi n o et al. 1999; Ja ffe et al. 20 03 ; Jalalud i n et al. 2 004 ;

Sin c lair an d To lsm a 2 004 ; No rris et al. 199 9). When NO 2 was significantly ass o ci ated with ac ute ast h m a

ED v i sits in si n g l e-pollu tan t m o d els and was includ ed in m u lti-p o llu tan t m o d els in t h ese stu d i es, its

asso ciatio n with asth m a ED v i sits (Galan et al. 2003; At kinson et al. 19 99) o r all r e sp ir ator y ED v isits

(Stieb et al. 20 00) h a s g e n e rally p e rsisted, altho ugh th e asso ciatio n d i d n o t p e rsist in on e stu dy after

i n cl usi o n of ben z e n e i n t h e m odel (T hom pso n et al

. 2 0 0 1 )

.

The relations hip obse rve d i n recent tim e-series studies betwee n c h anges in am bient particulate m a tter and

acut e ast h m a ED vi si t s i s com p l i cat ed by t h e di ve rsi t y of ex po s u re i ndi cat ors re prese n t i n g ai r b or ne

part i c ul at es. Am bi ent pa rt i c ul at e m a t t e r has m o st oft e n bee n a ssesse d as PM 10 , but ot he r m e t r i c s have b een

use d , i n cl u d i n g PM 10-2.5 (c oarse f r actio n), PM 2.5 , PM 1 , t o t a l su s p en de d part i c ul at es, bl ac k sm oke a n d ul t r a

fines a ssesse d on a particle count

, s u rface a r ea or light scatter basis. C o llectively, am bient particulate

matter has been significantly ass o ciat ed with ac ute ast h m a ED visits in a m a jority of r ecent st udies (Galan

et al. 20 03 ; A t k i n s on et al. 19 99 ; Stieb et al. 2 000 ; C h e w et al. 1999; T h om pson et al. 2001; Jaffe et al.

20 0 3 , J a l a l udi n et al

. 2 0 0 4 ; Si n c l a i r a n d T o l s m a 200 4; No rri s et al

. 19 9 9 ). A fe w st udi es t h at i n cl ud ed

p articu l ate m atter in m o d els of acu t e asth m a ED v i sits h a v e n o t ob serv ed a sign ifican t asso ciation

( S laugh ter et al. 200 4 ; Michau d et al. 200 4 ; Lier l an d Ho rnu n g 20 03 ; To lb er t et al. 20 00 ), althou gh Lier l

an d Hor nun g ( 2003 ) d i d r e po r t t

h at th e asso ciation o f acu t e asth m a ED v i sits w ith po llen levels w a s

st ro nge r o n hi gh PM 10 day s t h a n on l o w PM 10 day s

, su g g est i n g a n e nha ncem ent of t h e p o l l e n e ffect by

PM 10 . The ass o ciation bet w een PM 10 an d ac ut e ast h m a ED vi si t s has ge neral l y pe rsi s t e d i n t h e fe w st u d i e s

th at in clud ed o th e r cr iter ia po llu tan ts i n th e m o d e l (G alan et al. 2003 ; A t k in s on et al. 19 99 ), altho ugh t h e

associ at i o n was not ro b u st t o i n cl u s i o n of be nze n e i n t h e m odel i n one st u d y (T h o m p son et al

. 20 0 1 )

.

The st udi es m e nt i oned a b ov e gi ve n o cl ear i ndi cat i o n t h at the ass o ciation of am bient pa rticulate m a tter and

acute asthm a exacerbations can be attri bute d to a s p eci fic size fra ction. Howe ver, the r e has bee n relatively

little pre v ious investigation of the ass o ciation be t w een acute asthm a ED visits and fine-fracti on (PM 2.5 )

part i c ul at e m a t t e r com ponent s, as was d o n e i n t h i s st udy

. I n t h e c u r r ent st u d y , t h e ass o ci at i o n o b se rve d wi t h

acute asthm a exacerbations i n th e Bronx was stronger for the PM 2.5 fra ction tha n fo r PM 10 . To lbert et al.

( 200 0) r e po r ted p r elim in ar y f ind ing s u s ing on e year of d a ta f r o m th e Aero so l Resear ch an d Inh a latio n

Ep id em io lo g y St u d y (ARIES) “supersite” air m o n ito ring st at i on i n At l a nt a. T h ey fo u n d n o si gni fi cant

associations betwee n asth m a ED visits a n d 10 partic ulate m atter param eters—PM 10 , PM 2.5 , PM 10-2.5 ,

u ltrafin e particle nu m b er, ultrafi n e particle surface area a n d five PM 2.5 co nstitu en ts (m etals, acid ity,

sulfates, orga nic ca rbon a n d elem ental carbon). Si nc lair an d To lsm a (2 00 4), inv e stig ated acu te asth m a



### 31v i sits to am b u l ato r y care clin ics in a priv ate h ealth- car e n e t w or k in r e latio n to t w o year s of data fr o m th e

At l a nt a AR IES su pe rsi t e

. Am ong al l t h e sam e part i c ul at e m a tt er va ri abl e s, t h ey re p o rt e d si gn i f i c a n t

associations betwee n ultrafi n e par ticle surface area and a d ult asthm a , and betwee n c h ild asthm a and four

p articu l ate m atter v ariab les (PM 10-2.5 , PM 10 , PM 2.5 elem ental carbon, PM 2.5 orga n i c ca rb o n ). Fi ne f r act i o n

acidity and sulfate we re si gni ficantly associ at ed wi t h ac ut e ast h m a ED vi si t s i n si ngl e

- pol l u t a nt m odel s i n

anot her st u d y (St i e b et al

. 2 000 )

.

In t h e c u r r e n t st u d y , c h a nges i n bi o aer os ol l e vel s a n d acu te asth m a ED v i sits were g e n e rally un related or

only weakly ass o ciated. T h is cont rast s s o m e what wi t h seve ral rec e nt st

udi es sh o w i n g si gni fi ca nt

asso ciatio ns b e tween tem p o r al p a ttern s of am b i en t po llen s or f ung al sp or es and ast h m a ED v i sits ( L ier l and

H o r nun g 2003 ; Stieb et al. 20 00 ; Lew i s et al. 2000 ; To b i as et al

. 2 003

, 20 04 ; D a les et al. 20 00 , 200 3)

.

A v er ag e d a ily p o llen and fu ng al- s por e c oun ts in t h ese stud ies were g e n e rally sev e ral-fo ld h i gher th an lev e ls

obs er ved i n t h e c u r r e n t st u d y . P o pul at i o n prev al en ce of al l e rg e n se nsi t i zat i on vari es ge o g rap h i cal l y

,

depe n d i n g on t h e ge o g ra phi c d i st ri but i o n of pl a n t s , a n i m al s and fu n g i t h at pro d u ce al l e rge n s (e. g

. , Ar ru da

et al. 19 91 ; Call et al. 19 92 ; Gelb er et al. 19 9 3 ; Platts-Mills et al. 1 995 ). Fo r po llen an d m o ld expo su re t o

pote n tially have a n e ffect on ac ute asthm a exacerbatio ns, individuals m u st be bo th sensitized and e x posed

to th e relev a n t allerg ens. So m e ev id en ce ind i cates th at prev alen ce o f sen s itizatio n to po llen and m o ld

allerg en s is relativ ely low i n inn e r-city ch ildren wit h asthm a (Kattan et al. 1997 ; Crai n et al. 2002), which

coul d l i m it st udy p o w er t o det ect bi oaer os ol ef fect s i n ur ban en vi r o nm ent s . O u r st u d y desi gn m a y not ha ve

been optim al to investigate direct ass o ciations betwee n ac ute asthm a exacerbations a n d am bient bioae r osol

l e vel s o r pot e n t i a l effect s m odi fi cat i on bet w ee n bi oae r osol s an d am bi ent c h em i c al pol l u t a nt s

, due t o t h e

relativ ely lo w bio a ero s o l lev e ls we o b serv ed an d th eir h igh ly sk ewed tem p o r al d istribu tion

.

Ass o ci at i ons we re ob ser v ed i n t h i s st udy bet w ee n ac ut e ast h m a ED vi si t s a n d cha n ges i n dai l y ai r p o l l u t a nt

lev e ls. Fo r criteria air po llu tan t s, these asso ciatio ns were f oun d fo r l e vel s t h at were ge ner a l l y near o r bel o w

th e N a tion a l A m b ien t A ir Qu ality Stan d a r d s ( NAAQ S; see Par t A ) . The an n u al av er ag e NO 2 and S O 2

standa rds were not exceede d during t h e st udy at eit h er site, and neithe r was the 24-hour S O 2 standa rd. T h e

m a xim u m 24- ho u r FR M PM 2.5 o b se rvat i o n du ri ng t h e st udy d i d n o t e x cee d t h e 2 4

- hour st a n d a r d

, b u t t h e

annual a v era g es at each site we re a p proxim ately equal to or slightly above the standa rd (15–16 μ g/ m 3

vers us t h e N A A Q S o f 15 ). M o re t h a n 9 5 % of al l ei ght -hou r O 3 obs e r vat i o ns f e l l bel o w t h e 8 0 pp b st a nda r d

,

an d r e m o v ing the eigh t- hour m o v ing av er ag e O 3 ob s e r v at i o ns t h at excee de d 8 0 pp b di d n o t al t e r t h e

asso ciatio n between in crem en tal O 3 exp o sure and asth m a ED v i sits. Th is is con s isten t with th e resu lts o f

othe r rece nt studies that obs erved significa n t ass o cia tio n s b e tween acu te asth m a ED v i sits and in crem en ts

in am bient air polluta nt concent r atio ns at a b sol u te c o ncentrations at or b e lo w t h e N AAQ S ( e .g

., Fa urou x et

al. 2000; Micha u d et al. 2004; Galan et al. 200 3; At kins on et al. 1999; Ja ffe et al. 2003)

.



### 32Five-day m ean contaminant conce n tr at i o ns we re used f o r

assessi ng ass o ci at i ons o f p o l l u t a nt s a n d ast h m a

em ergency de part m e nt vi si t s . T h i s wa s do ne t o pr o v i d e a co nsi s t e nt m odel fo r al l pol l u t a nt s at bot h st u d y

areas. Usi n g fiv e d a ys h a s b i o l og ical p l au sib ility, b a sed on b o t h d i sease m ech an ism s an d reports on wh en

sym p t o m s st art versu s vi si t s t o t h e E D

. Fo r i n st a n ce, ex p o s u re t o pol l u t a nt s ca pa bl e o f i nduci n g ai r w ay

i n fl am m a t i on, s u ch as ozo n e an d fi ne pa rt i c ul at es (Pe d e n 2 002 ) , m a y prom ot e u nde rl y i ng ai r w ay

in f lammatio n o r h y p e r- r e spon siv e n e ss to an exten t r e q u ir i n g m e d ical tr eat m e n t. Ro dr igo ( 2 004) r e po r ted

th at wh en airway inflammat i o n was p r edo m in an t in th e pro g ression of an asth m a attack in adu lts,

det e ri o r at i o n of l u n g f unct i o n a n d cl i n i cal st at us us ual l y occ u r r e d ove r a pe ri o d of day s o r week s pri o r t o

prese n t i n g t o t h e em ergency depa rt m e nt . Thi s t y pe of ast h m a pr o g ressi on wa s not e d i n 8 0 % t o 9 0 % of

adul t s pre s ent i n g t o t h e em ergency depa rt m e nt wi t h ac ut e ast h m a . C a nny et al . ( 1 98 9 ) i n vest i g at e d t h e t i m e

bet w ee n whe n a s t h m a sym p t o m s were fi rst not e d i n pedi at ri c pat i e nt s a n d whe n t h ey we nt t o t h e ED . T h e

av erag e du ration o f sym p to m s b e fo re th e ED visit was 41 ho urs; 84 % wen t to th e ho sp ital with in 7 2 hou rs

and 9 7 % wi t h i n 16 8 h o u r s. Si ncl a i r an d T o l s m a (2 00 4) i n vest i g at ed ass o ci at i ons o f vari ou s l a gs b e t w ee n

pol l u t a nt s a n d chi l d re n’s am bul at ory ca re vi si t s fo r ast h m a and noted t h at m o st of t h e statistically

si gni fi ca nt asso ci at i ons oc cu rre d wi t h l a gs of t h r ee t o fi ve d a y s , c o m p ared wi t h ze r o - t o t w o-day l a g s a n d

six

- t o eigh t-d a y lags.

STUD Y STRE NGTH S AN D LI MITATI ON S

Th e relativ ely h i gh po pu latio n d e n s ity of t h e Bron x and Man h attan allowed fo r th e cen t ral m o n itors t o b e

use d as a n i ndicat or f o r e x po su re fo r a relativ ely sm all area (i.e ., t h e p opu latio n resi d i ng with in

ap pro x i m a tel y 1

. 5 m i les o f th e m o n itoring site). Fu rth e rm o r e, t h e co rrelatio n b e t w een th e two m o n ito ring

sites was relativ ely h i gh (i.e., greater th an 0

. 6 ) an d m ean levels were v e ry sim ilar for m o st analy t es,

perha p s partially m itigating against exposure m i sc lassification biases that m i ght occ u r because of

m ovem e nt of resi de nt s t h r o u g h o u t t

h e great er Ne w Y o r k C i t y area. Ne ve rt hel e ss, usi ng a c e n t ral

m onitoring site to estim ate expos ure still adds s o m e unce r tainty to e x pos u re estim ates com p ared with

pers o n al m oni t o ri n g

. Pe rso n al e x p o s u re t o ai r pol l u t a nt s ca n b e i n fl ue nce d not o n l y by am bi ent

conce n t r at i o ns b u t al so by i ndi v i d u al act i v i t y and o t he r i n d oor a n d m i croen v i r o n m e nt al expo s u res (e .g

.,

exp o s u re t o VO C s fr om cons um er pr od uct s

, sm oke f r om t obacc o, can dl es or co o k i n g) . F o r p o l l u t a nt s s u ch

as pa rticulate m a tter, these ot her source s ca n e x ert si gni fi cant i n fl ue nce o n pers o n al ex p o s u re. However

,

am bi e nt PM 2.5 m easured at cen t r al m oni t o ri ng si t e s has bee n f o un d t o be c o rr el at ed wi t h a v e r age pe rs onal

expos u re s to PM 2.5 ( e .g ., Li u et al. 200 3 ; Sarn at et al. 20 01 , 2 005)

.

C o m b i n i ng dat a ac ros s a fi ve -day l a g wi n d o w w h en est i m at i ng ass o ci at i ons bet w e e n c h an ges i n pol l u t a nt

co n cen tration s and acu t e ast h m a ED v i sits represen ts a trad e-o ff between t h e sen s itiv ity of th e an alysis to

d e tect effects in sho r t tim e in terv als v e rsu s ob tain in g a co nsi s t e nt u n d e rst a ndi ng o f t h e rel a t i o ns hi p bet w een

ai r p o l l u t a nt c h a nge s a n d E D vi si t s

, gi ven l a g st ruct ur es that differe d am ong air c o ntam inants as well as

b e tween th e two co mm u n ities. Th e fiv e -d ay expo sure wi nd o w cou l d cap t ure ED v i sits fo r asth m a attack s



### 33wi t h ei t h e r a sl o w or a s u d d e n p r og ressi on

. Ho we ver, u s i ng fi ve day s c oul d al s o have p o t e nt i a l l y wea k ene d

o r

m a sk ed asso ciatio n s if t h e po llu tan t h a s a rap i d on set, sho r t lasting effect. Sin c e a ro lling fi v e -d ay lag

wind ow was em p l o y ed in t h e an alysis, effects o f m u lti-d a y p o llu tion ev en ts wou l d b e cap t u red b y

accum u lating cases during the duratio n of the pollution e v ent a n d duri ng t h e following four days.

Th e lack o f co nsisten c y i n statistically sig n i fican t e ffects i n th e two st u d y areas add s so m e u n c ertain ty to

th e g e n e rality o f t

h e fi nd ing s . Howev e r, as d i scu s sed abo v e , d i fferen ces in th e statistical p o w er i n th e two

stu d y areas m a y h a v e con t ribu ted to t h is. Sim i larly, th e ten d e ncy for t h e co n t ro l con d ition s to h a v e odd s

rat i o s great e r t h a n 1 a d ds s o m e unce r t a i n t y t o t h e r o bust n ess o f t h e fi ndi ngs . Se ve ral o f t h e fi ndi ng s,

p a rticu l arly O 3 an d SO 2 , a r e st re n g t h e n e d by t h e ro b u st nes s of t h e fi n d i n gs w h en ad di n g i n t h e ot her

p o llu tan ts.

The observe d ass o ciations betwee n s p ecific poll u tants an d asth m a ED v i sits do no t n ecessarily ind i cate

cause a n d effect. One pos sible reason is that the ass o ci at i o n m a y be due t o an u n m easured po l l u t a nt t

h at c o

v a ries with t h e m easu r ed p o llu tan t . For in stan ce, Th om pson et al. (2001) observe d ass o ciations betwee n

PM 10 , SO 2 , NO, NO 2 , NO

x , CO a n d benze n e a n d ac ute asthm a exacer bations in c h ildre n. W h e n a d justing

for b e n z en e, n one o f th e o t h e r po ll u t an ts were asso ciat ed with a sign ifican t effect. In add itio n, m a n y o t h e r

v a riab les th at can tri g g e r an asth m a attack were no t co n t ro lled fo r in t h e st u d y . It is also po ssib l e t h at

u n m easu r ed co nfo und er s r e lated to i n doo r en viro n m en tal expos u res or soci o-econom i c status va riables

might be c o ntributing t o variability in ac ute asthm a exacerbations. Howe ve r, within eac h study a r ea, t h e

ti m e-series d esign at least p a rtially co n t ro ls for unm easure d confounde rs beca use eac h case acts es sentially

as its own control. T h e analysis de tects m a rg in al ch ang e s in th e ou tco m e v a riab le relativ e t o th e b a selin e

rate that a r e ass o ciated with t h e m easure d e xpos u re va riables, and t h e baseline rate would incl ude effects

due t o u n m easured va ri abl e s, suc h as lo cal or indo or exp o s ur es.

Our results suggest that i n creases in seve ral am bien t po llu tan t s m a y b e asso ciat ed with i n crease d ac ute

asthm a exacerbations i n a com m unity. Because of the c o mm unity-based desi gn used in the st udy,

u n c ertain ty ex ists reg a rd ing t h e p r ecise p a ttern o f exp o sure to th e stud y anal ytes expe rienced by eac h

asthm a case and the e x tent t o whic h indi vidual exposu re cl o s ely m a tch e s a m b i en t po llu tan t pattern s. Recen t

d a ta su gg est th at th ere is v a riation in th e d e g r ee to wh ich p e rson al m o n ito ri n g reflects con c o m itan t am b i en t

p o llu tan t pattern s. In stud ies fro m Balti m o re an d Bo st o n co m p aring urb a n am b i en t air m o n itoring d ata with

pers o n al m oni t o ri n g dat a , am bi ent PM 2.5 d ata correlated well wit h p erson al PM 2.5 d a ta, bu t am b i en t g a seou s

cri t e ri a p o l l u t a nt s di d not c o r r el at e wel l wi t h t h ei r c o r r es po ndi n g pers o n al dat a (Sa r nat et

al

. 20 0 1

, 2 0 0 5 )

.

In terestin g l y, am b i en t gaseou s po llu tan t s (p articu l arly SO 2 , O 3 and C O ) we re c o rrelated with personal

PM 2.5 d ata, p articu l arly th e p erson al m o n ito ring d ata for PM 2.5 com pone nt s ass o ci at ed wi t h am bi ent s o u r ces

(e.g., sul f ate). T h e aut h ors suggest that s o m e resp irat ory e ffects a ssociate d with am bient va riation i n

gase ous cri t e ri a p o l l u t a nt s i n t i m e-seri es st udi es m i ght act ual l y be det ect i n g e ffect s o f pers on al PM 2.5



### 34ex po su re, with th e am b i en t g a seou s co n c en tration s actin g as PM 2.5 su rrogates. Ob tain ing acute ast h m a cases

th ro ugh ED u tilizatio n m a d e it i m p r actical to con s id er p e rson al expo su re m o n itoring in th is st ud y, so we

can no t inv e stig ate t h is p o t en tial su rro g a te effect fu rt h e r

. Stud y d e sign s t h at r e tai n th e pow er of co mm u n itybase d t i m e-seri es anal y s es b u t i n co rp o r at e pe rs onal ai r m oni t o ri ng t o c o m p l e m e nt am bi ent m oni t o ri n g dat a

wo ul d be de si rabl e

.

Som e m i ssi ng dat a were est i m at ed by e x t r a pol at i o n fr om t h e sam e anal y t e at t h e ot he r m oni t o ri ng si t e o r

anot her analyte that was c o rrelated with the analyte fo r t h e m i ssin g d ata at th e sam e m o n ito ring site. Th is

ad ds so m e ad d itio n a l un certain ty to th e m easu r em en ts , but the effect on the m ean expos u re e stim a tes

ap p e ared to b e sm all an d th erefo r e un lik ely to ch ang e th e co nclusion s.



### 35

### 36Section 5

CO NCL USI O N S AN D RECO M M E N D A TIO N S

Th e resu lts sug g est th at t h e criteria po llu tan t s PM 2.5 , S O 2 , O 3 and NO 2 h a d a statistically d e tectab le im p act

o n acu te asth m a ED v i sits in a co mm u n ity with a relativ ely h i gh b a selin e rate o f acu t e ast h m a

exacerbations. In two-pollutant a n d th ree-pollutant re gressi on m odels, O 3 and S O 2 , and t o a lesser exte nt

max i m u m o n e

- hour PM 2.5 , were the m o st rob u st p o llu tan t s. In o t h e r wo rd s, th ese po llu tan t s exh i b ited less

ch ang e i n their effect estim ates as ad d ition al po llu ta n t s were add e d to t h e m o d e ls. R o bu st effects of O 3 have

been see n in pre v ious E D ast h m a studies (Stieb et al. 199 6 ; Martin s et al. 20 02) an d in h o spital ad m issio n s

st udi es o f ast h m a an d ot her res p i r at ory di seases (B u r ne tt et al. 199 7). It is of p articu l ar in terest th at we

obs er ved m o re r o b u st heal t h i m pact s o f dai l y m a xim u m PM 2.5 conce n t r at i o n t h a n of t h e 2 4 -hour m e an

,

suggesting t h at peak exposures m ay have large r health im pacts. T h ese ass o ciatio n s with h ealth effects i n

the Bronx occ u rre d at am bient air levels that a r e b elow th e curren t sho r t-term Nation al Am b i en t Ai r

Qu ality Stand ard s.

Th e fo llowing reco mmen d a tio ns are su gg ested b a sed o n th e stud y resu lts:

1. EPA shou ld co nsid er th e fi n d i ngs in th is st u d y an d ot he rs i d en t i f y i n g resp i r atory health effects

associated with SO 2 con c en tration s b e low cu rren t stand a rd s du ri n g th eir rev iew of th e SO 2 NAAQS

.

2. Future tim e-series studies exam ining ass o ciations bet w een am b i en t air po llu tan t s and h ealth

out c o m e s wo ul d be nefi t f

r o m di rect eval uat i o n o f t h e rel a t i o n s hi p bet w ee n per s o n al e x p o s u re an d re gi o n al

m oni t o ri ng dat a

.

3. Mo re research shou ld b e cond u c ted to try to d eterm in e if p eak, sho r t-term (e.g

. hou rly)

elevated c o ncentrations of PM 2.5 are m o re strongly ass o ciated tha n daily avera g e c o n cen t r atio ns with

asth m a an d o th e r h ealth en dpo in ts. If th e scien c e is su ff icien tly stron g , co nsid eratio n shou ld b e g i v e n to t h e

effects of s h ort-term PM 2.5 ex cu rsion s in fu ture rev i ews o f the pa rticulate m a tter NAAQS.

4. The hi g h c o r r el at i o n s bet w ee n pol l u t a nt s (i ncl u di n g c o m pone nt s of PM 2.5 ) m ak e it d i fficu lt in

th ese ep id em io lo g ic stud ies t o co nfid en tly id en tify criti cal co m p o u n d s

. Altern ativ e strateg i es to add r ess th is

q u e stio n shou ld b e con s id ered in th e fu tu re.

5. Furt her eval uat i o n of t h e st at i s t i cal m e t hods em pl oy ed i n t i m e-seri es epi d em i o l ogi cal st udi es

i s war r a n t e d, base d o n t h e s ugg est i o n of p o ssi bl e m odel bi as i n di cat ed by o u r a n al y s i s of con t r o l out c o m e s.

6. To t h e ex ten t th at targ eted co mm u n ity b a sed ast h m a in terv en tion s are p l an n e d with resp ect to

air po llu tion m e ssag e s, h i gh er priority sho u l d be g i v e n t o co mm u n ities with larg er ast h m a b u r d e n s

.



### 37

### 38REFERE NCES

Al exa nde rss o n R , K o l o m odi n

- He dm an B , Hede nst i e r n a G. 19 8 2

. E xposur e t o fo rm al dehy de: ef fect s on

pul m onary fu nct i o n. Arch . En viro n. Hea lth. 37 : 27 9 –84.

Arrud a LK, Rizzo MC, Ch ap m a n MD, Fern and e z-Cald as E, Bagg io D, Platts-Mills TA, Nasp itz CK. 1 991

.

Exp o s ure an d sensitizatio n to dust m ite allerg en s am o n g asth m a tic ch ild ren in Sao Pau l o

, Brazil.

Clin . Exp. Allerg y. 21 (4 ) : 4 33– 3 9.

A t k i nson R W , And e r s o n H R , Stach a n DP, Blan d A J M, Br emm e r SA

, Pon ce d e Leon A

. 19 99. Sho r t- ter m

associations betwee n out door air pollution a n d vi sits to accide nt a n d em ergency depa rtm e nts in

Lon don for resp irat o r y co m p lain ts. E u r. Resp. J. 13 : 25 7 –65.

Blaisd ell CJ. Weiss SR. Kim es DS. Lev i n e ER. Myer s M. Timmin s S. Bo lling e r ME. 20 02 . Usin g season al

v a riation s i n asth m a h o sp italizatio n s i n ch ild ren t o p r ed ict ho sp italizatio n frequ e n c y. J. As t h ma.

3 9(7 ) : 567 –75

.

Bu rn ett RT, Br ook JR, Yu ng W T

, D a les RE, Kr ewsk i D

. 199 7. A s so ciatio n betw een o z o n e an d

h o s p italizatio n for resp i r atory d i seases in 16 Can a d i an cities. Envi ron Res. 72(1) : 2 4 –31.

B u r n et t , R T

, Dal e s R E , R a i z i e n n e M E

, K r e w ski D. , S u m m ers, P W

, R o bert s GR

, R aad -Young M

, Dan n T,

Br oo k J. 199 4. Ef f ects o f low am b ien t lev e ls of o z on e an d su lf ates o n th e f r e quen c y of r e sp irator y

ad m i ssio n s to On tario ho sp itals. Envir o n. Res. 65 : 1 72 –94.

Call RS, Sm i t h TF, Morris E, C h ap m a n MD, Platts-Mills TA. 1 992 . Risk fact o r s fo r asth m a in inn e r city

ch ild ren

. J. Pedi at r. 12 1 ( 6 ) : 8 62 –66

.

C a nny

, G . J. , J. R e i s m a n, R . Heal y

, C . Sc h w art z

, C . Pet r o u

, A . S . R e b u c k

, H. Le vi so n. 1 9 89. Acut e

Ast h m a : Obse rvat i o ns R e ga rdi n g t h e M a na gem e nt of a Pe di at ri c Em ergency R oom

. Pedi at ri cs 83:

5 07– 12

.

C a ssi no C

, It o K

, B a de r I

, C i ot ol o C

, T h u rst on G, R e i b m a n J. 1 9 9 9

. C i garet t e sm oki n g a n d o z o n e

associated em erge ncy de pa rtm e nt use for asth m a b y adu lts in New Yo rk City. Am. J

. Res p ir. Crit.

Ca re Med

. 159 : 177 3– 79.

Ch ew FT, Goh DYT, Oo i BC, Saharo m R, Hu i JKS, L ee BW. 1999. Ass o ciation o f am b i en t air-p o llu ti on

levels with acute a sthm a exacerba tion am ong c h ildren in Singa p ore. Allerg y. 54: 3 2 0 –29.

C r ai n E F

, Wal t e r M

, O ’ C o n nor GT, M i t c hel l H, G r ucha lla RS, Kattan M, Malind z ak GS, Enrigh t P, Ev an s

R II I, M o r g a n W, Sto u t J W

. 20 0 2

. H o m e and alle rg ic ch aracteristics o f ch ild ren with ast h m a in

sev e n US u r b a n co mm u n ities an d d e sign o f an en v i ron m en tal in terv en tio n : the inn e r-city asth m a

st udy

. Envir o n. He alth Per spect. 1 1 0: 9 3 9–45.

Dales RE, Cak m ak S, B u rn ett RT, Jud e k S, Coates F, Broo k, J. 200 0. I n f l u e nce o f am b i en t f ung al sp or es

o n em erg e n c y v i sits fo r asth m a to a reg i on al ch ild ren ' s ho sp ital. Am. J. Res p . Crit. C a re Med.

1 62 : 208 7–9 0.

Dal e s R E

, C a km ak S, Ju de k S, Dan n T, C o at es F , B r o o k J B u r n et t R T . 200 3

. The r o l e of f

u n g al s p ores i n

th un d e rstorm asth m a. Ch est 12 3: 7 4 5–50

.



### 39Delfino RJ , Coate B D , Zaige r RS, Seltzer JM, St reet D H

, K out ra ki s P. 1 9 96. Dai l y ast h m a severi t y i n

r e latio n t o p e r s onal o z on e exp o s ur e an d ou td oor fu ng al spo r es. Am. J. Resp ir. Crit. Ca re Med

.

1 54 : 633 –41

.

Delfino RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH. 1 998

. Sym p to ms in p e d i atric asth m a tics an d air po llu tion :

di ffe re nces i n ef fect s by sy m p t o m severi t y , ant i

- i n f l am m a t o ry m e di cat i on use an d pa rt i c ul at e

avera g ing tim e. Environ. He alth Pers pect

. 1 06 ( 1 1): 7 51 –61.

Do m i n i ci F, McDerm o tt A, Zeger SL, Sam et JM. 20 02 . On the u s e o f g e n e ralized ad d itiv e m o d els i n tim eseries stud ies o f air po llu tio n and h ealth. Am. J. Ep id emio l. 156 : 1 9 3–203.

D ono ghu e A M, Tho m as M. 1 999

. Po i n t so ur ce su lphu r d i o x id e peak s an d h o sp ital p r esen tation s f o r

asthm a

. Occup. Envir o n. Me d. 56: 2 32– 3 6

.

Eggleston, P A

, TJ B u c k ley, PN Breysse , M. Wi lls-K arp, SR K leeb e rg er , an d JJ Jaak ko la. 1 999 . Th e

en v i ron m en t an d asth m a in US inn e r cities. Envi ron. He alth P e rspect. 107 ( s u p pl 3): 439

– 50.

Faur oux B, Sam p il M, Q u en el P, Lem o u llec Y. 2 0 0 0

. Oz one: a t ri g ge r f o r hos pi t a l pe di at ri c ast h m a

em ergency ro om vi si t s

. Ped. Pulmonol. 3 0 : 41 –46.

Fei n m a n SE. 19 8 8

. R e spi r at ory e ffect s f r om fo rm al dehy de. In Fei n m a n SE (e d. ), Fo rmal dehyd e sen s itivity

an d t o xi ci t y

, 1 35– 48. CRC Press, Bo ca Raton

.

G a lan I

, Tob i as A

, Ban e g a s JR, A r ang u e z E. 2003 . Sh or t- ter m ef f ects of air po ll u tion o n d a ily asth m a

em ergency ro om adm i ssi ons. Eur. Resp. J

. 2 2: 8 02 –808

.

Gavett SH, Koren HS. 2001 . The role of pa rticulate m atter in exacerbations of atopic asthm a. Int. A r c h

.

Allerg y Immun o l

. 124 :109

– 12.

Gelb er LE, Seltzer LH, B o u z o u k i s JK, Po llart SM, Ch ap m a n MD, Platts-Mills TA. 19 93 . Sen s itizatio n an d

exp o s u re t o i n d o o r al l e rge n s as ri s k fact o r s for ast h m a am ong pat i e nt s present i n g t o hos pi t a l

. Am.

Rev. Res p ir. Dis. 147 (3 ) : 5 73– 7 8.

Gol d st ei n IF, D u l b e r g EM

. 1 9 8 1

. Ai r pol l u t i o n and ast h m a : search for a relationshi p. J. Air Pol l ut. Control

Assoc

. 3 1 : 3 70– 76

.

G o l d stein I F , Lan dov itz L. 19 77 . An alysis of air po llu tion p atterns in New Yo rk City-I. Can on e station

represen t th e larg e m e tro p o litan area ? At mos. E n vir o n. 11 : 47–52.

G r eenb ur g L, Field F, Reed JI

, Erh a rd t CL. 1 964. A s th m a an d tem p er atu r e chan g e

. Arch. Environ. He alth

8 : 64 2–4 7.

H a rv ing H

, Ko r s g a ar d J, D a h l R, Ped e r s en O F , Mo lh av e L. 1 986. Lo w con c en tr ation s o f fo r m ald e h yd e in

b r on ch ial ast h m a : a stu d y of expo su re und er con tro lled con d ition s

. Brit. Med. J. 293: 3 1 0

.

Hernandez-Garduno E, Pe rez-Neria J, Paccagnella AM

, Pi na-Gar cia M

, Munguia-Castro M, CatalanV azqu ez M

, Roj a s- Ram o s M. 199 7. A i r po llu tio n and resp iratory h e alth in Mex i co City. J. Occ u p

Environ Med. 39( 4) : 2 99– 307

.

Jaffe D H

, Si n g er M E , R i m m AA. 20 0 3

. Ai r po l l u t i o n a n d em ergency depa rt m e nt vi si t s fo r ast h m a am ong

O h i o Med icaid recip ien ts, 199 1– 1 996. Envir o n Res

. 91 : 21–28.



### 40Jal a l udi n B B , O ’ T o ol e B I

, Lee d er SR

. 2 0 0 4

. Ac ut e e ffect s o f ur ban am bi ent ai r p o l l u t i o n on re spi r at ory

sym p t o m s , ast h m a m e di cat i on use , a n d d o ct or vi s its fo r asth m a in a co hort o f Australian ch ild ren.

Environ Res. 9 5 : 32– 42.

Joh n st on SL , Pat t e m o re PK , Sa n d ers o n G, Sm i t h S, C a m pbel l M J , Jose p h s L K

, C u n n i n gham A, R o bi ns on

BS, Myin t SH, Ward ME, Ty rrell DA, Ho lgate ST. 1 9 9 6

. T h e rel a t i ons hi p bet w ee n up per

resp i r ato r y i n fection s and ho sp ital ad m i ssio n s fo r asth m a : a ti m e -tren d an alysis. Am. J

. Respir. Crit.

Ca re Med

. 154 (3 Pt 1) :65 4

– 6 0

.

Jo hn st o n NW , John ston SL, D uncan JM, Gree ne JM, Keba dze T, Keith PK

, R o y M, Waserm an S, Sea r s

MR. 2005. T h e Se ptem ber epidem ic of asthm a ex acerbations in childre n: A searc h for eti o logy. J.

Allerg y Clin

. Immu no l. 1 1 5( 1): 132–38

.

Jo nes GN, Sletten C

, Mandry C, Bran tley PJ. 199 5. Ozon e level effect o n resp irat o r y illn ess: an

i nvest i g at i o n of em ergency dep a rt m e nt vi si t s . S out h M e d J. 88 ( 1 0): 1 0 4 9 -56.

Kattan M, Mitch e ll H, Egg l eston P, Gerg en P, C r ain E, Re dline S

, Weiss K, E v a n s R, Ka slow R, Ka rcsm ar

C,Leick l y F, Mal v eaux F, W e dn er H J . 199 7. C h ar act eristics of inn e r-city ch ild ren with asth m a : th e

n a tio n a l coop erativ e inn e r-city asth m a stu d y

. Ped. Pu l m ono l. 24: 2 53 –62.

Ki n n ey PL

, Agg a r w al M

, N o rt h r i dge M E , J a nss e n N A

, She p a r d P. 2000. Ai r b o r ne co nce n t r at i o ns of

PM(2.5) and d i esel exh a u s t p a rticles on Harlem sid e walk s: a co mm u n ity-b ased p ilo t stud y. Environ

Hea lth Persp ect. 1 08 ( 3): 2 1 3–18

.

Lena T S

, Oc hi en g V, C a rt er M

, Hol gui n-Ve ras J, Ki nney PL. 2 0 0 2 . El em ent a l carbo n an d PM (2 .5 )l evel s

in an urb a n co mm u n ity h eav ily im pacted by truck traffic. Envi r o n He alth Pers pect. 110( 1 0 ): 10 0 9–

15

.

Lewi s S A

, C o rde n JM , F o r s t e r GE, Ne wl an ds M

. 20 0 0 . C o m b i one d e ffect s o f aer o b i o l o gi cal pol l u t a nt s,

ch em ical p o llu tan t s an d m e teo r o l og ical con d ition s on asth m a ad m i ssio n s an d A&E attend ances in

D e rb ysh i r e U K

, 1 993

– 1996

. Clin . Exp

. Allerg y 30 : 17 2 4–32.

Lierl MB, Hornung R W . 2003. Relationshi p of out door ai r quality to pediatric a sthm a exacerbations. Ann

Allerg y Ast h ma Immu no l. 90 : 28– 3 3.

Liu L

- JS, Bo x M

, Kalm an D, Ka u f m a n J, K o e n ig JQ, La rs on T, et al. 2003. E x posure asse ssm ent of

p articu l ate m atter fo r su scep tib le pop u l ation s i n Seattle, WA. Envi ron He alth Pers pect. 111: 9 0 9

–

18

.

M a rt i n s LC

, Lat o rre M d o R

, Sal d i v a P H

, B r ag a AL. 2 0 0 2

. Ai r pol l u t i on an d em ergency r o om vi si t s d u e t o

chronic lower res p iratory diseases in the elderly: an eco log ical ti m e

- s er ies stud y in Sao Pau lo,

Brazil. J. Occ u p. E n viron Me d. 4 4 ( 7 ) : 62 2 –27.

Michaels RA and Kleinm an MT. 2000. Inci dence and appa ren t heal t h si gni fi cance o f bri e f ai rborne p a rt i c l e

excursions

. Aero so l S c ien ce Techno l. 3 2: 9 3–105

.

Michaud J

- P, Sinclair Grove J, Krupitsky D. 2004. Em ergency depa rtm ent visits and “vog”-relate d ai r

q u ality in Hilo , Hawai’i. En viron Res. 9 5: 1 1–19.



### 41Natio n a l Cen t er fo r Health Statistics (NC H S). 19 97 . Cu rren t estim a t es fro m th e Nation al Health In terv iew

Su rv ey, 199 0. Vita l an d Hea lth S ta tistics 10( 194 )

.

Natio n a l Heart, Lun g , an d Blo o d In stitu te (NHLBI). 1 999 . Data Fact Sh eet. Asth m a Statistics. Pu b lic

Health Serv ice, Natio n a l In stitu tes of Health , Beth esd a , M D

.

N o r r is G

, You n g P on g SN

, Ko en i g JQ , Lar s on TV , Sh epp a r d L, Stou t JW

. 1 999 . An asso ciation b e tw een

fin e p a rticles and asth m a e m erg e n c y d e p a rtm e n t v i sits fo r ch ildren in Seattle. Envi r o n Heal t h

Perspect. 107 : 489

– 93.

Ped e n

, D. 200 2. Po llu tan t s an d asth m a : ro le o f air tox i cs. Env i r o n He alth Pers pect. 110 ( S up pl 4): 56 5 –68.

Platts-Mills TA, Spo r ik R, Ing r am JM, Hon s ing e r R. 199 5. Dog and cat allergen s an d asth m a a m o n g schoo l

ch ild ren i n Lo s Alam o s , New Mex i co , USA: altitud e 7

, 2 0 0 feet. In t. Arch . Allerg y Immu no l. 107(1–

3 ) : 3 01– 303

.

Ro drigo GJ, Rod r i g o C, Hall JB. 2 004

. Acu t e asth m a in ad u lts A rev i ew. Ch est 125:1 081–102.

Sar n at JA , B r ow n K W

, Sc hwar t z J, C o ul l B A

, K o ut ra ki s P

. 20 0 5

. Am bi ent gas co nce n t r at i o n s a n d pe rs onal

p articu l ate m atter ex po su res. Im p licatio n s for stu d y ing h ealth effects of p articles. Ep id emi o log y

1 6(3 ) : 385 –95

.

Sarn at JA, Sch w ar tz J, Catalano PJ, Suh H H . 2001

. G a seou s po ll u t an ts in par ticu l ate m a tter ep id em io lo g y :

co nfo und er s or su rro g a tes ? E n vir o n Health Pers pect. 10 9 ( 1 0): 1 05 3 –61.

Sch a tz M, Cam a rg o CA Jr. 2 0 03. Th e relatio nsh i p o f se x to asth m a p r ev alen ce, h ealth care u tilizatio n, an d

m e di cat i ons i n a l a r g e m a naged ca re or ga ni zat i on. An n. Allerg y Asthma Immuno l. 91(6 ) : 553

– 58.

Schat z M

, C l ark S, Em ond JA, Sc h r ei ber D , C a m a rgo C A J r

. 2 0 0 4 . Se x di f f ere n ces am on g c h i l d re n 2 –13

years of a g e pre senting at t h e em ergency de partm e nt with acute ast h m a

. Ped. P u l m o nol

. 3 7 ( 6 ) : 523–

29

.

Schwartz J

, Slater D

, La rs on TV , Pie r son WE, Ko en ig JQ. 1 993

. Particu late air po llu tion an d h o s p ital

e m erg en cy roo m v i sits for asth m a in Seattle. Am. Rev. Res p ir. Dis. 147 : 8 2 6 –31.

Sin c lair AH an d To lsm a D. 2 0 04. Asso ciatio ns an d la gs between air pollution and ac ute respi r atory visits in

an am b u l ato r y care setting : 2 5

- m o n t h resu lts fro m th e aero s o l research an d inh a latio n

epidem iological study. J

. Air. Waste Manage . A ssn. 54 : 1 21 2–18.

Slau gh ter JC, Kim E, Sh epp a rd L, Su lliv an JH, La rso n TV, Clairb orn C. 20 0 4 . Asso ciation between

p articu l ate m atter an d em erg ency roo m v i sits, h o s p ital ad m i ssio n s and m o rtality in Spo k a n e,

Was h in gto n

. J

. Ex pos. Anal. Envir o n. E p ide m

. Adv a nce d o n l i n e pu bl i cat i o n

, 9 J une 2 0 04: 1–7.

St i e b DM , B e ve ri d g e R C

, B r oo k JR , Sm i t h -Doi ro n M , B u r n et t R T

, Dal e s R E

, B eaul i e u S, Ju de k S

,

M a m e dov A

. 20 0 0

. Ai r p o l l u t i o n, ae roal l e r g en s a n d ca rdi o res p i r at o r y em ergency de part m e nt vi si t s

in Sain t John , Can a da. J

. Ex pos . A n al. E n vir o n. E p ide m

. 10 : 4 6 1 –77.

St i e b DM , B u rn et t R T , B e veri d g e R C

, B r oo k JR

. 19 9 6

. Ass o ci at i o n bet w een ozo n e a n d ast h m a em ergency

depa rt m e nt vi si t s i n Sai n t Jo hn

, Ne w B r u n swi c k, C a na da. Envi r o n Health Pers pect. 104(12): 1 354–

60

.



### 42Su h HH

, Al l e n GA

, Ko ut ra ki s P , B u rt o n R M

. 1 9 9 5 . S p at i a l va ri at i o n i n aci di c s u l f at e an d am m oni a

co n c en tration s with i n m e tro p o litan Ph ilad e lp h i a. J. Air W a ste M a nage . Ass o c. 45: 4 4 2 –52.

Tenias JM, Ballester F, Rivera ML. 1998. Association bet w een h o s pi t a l em ergency vi sits for asthm a and air

p o llu tion i n Valen c ia, Sp ain

. Occ u p. Envir o n. Me d. 55 ( 8 ): 5 41 –47.

Thom pson AJ , Shields M D , Patters on CC. 2001. Ac ute asthm a exacerbations a n d air pollutants i n c h ildre n

liv in g i n Belfast, North e rn Ireland

. Arch. E n viron He alth. 56 : 2 3 4–41.

Thu r st o n GD, Ito K, Kinn ey PL, Lipp m a n n M. 199 2. A m u lti-year stu d y of air po llu tion an d resp irat o r y

h o s p ital ad m i ssio n s i n three N ew York State m etr o p o litan areas: resu lts fo r 1988 and 1 989 su mm ers.

J. Ex pos . A n al . E n vi ro n. E p i d e m

. 1 9 2: 42 9 –50.

Tob i as A, Cam p b e ll MJ, Saez M. 19 99 . Mod e llin g asth m a ep id em ics o n the relation s h i p b etween ai r

pol l u t i o n a n d ast h m a em ergency vi si t s i n B a rcel ona , S p ai n

. Eur. J. Epi d emiol

. 15(9 ) : 7 9 9–803.

To bi as A

, Gal a n I, B a ne gas JR

, Ara n guez E. 2 0 03. S h o r t t e rm effect s of ai r b o r ne p o l l e n con c e n t r at i o ns on

asthm a epidem ic. Th or ax

58: 7 0 8 –10

.

To bi as A , Gal a n I, B a ne gas JR . 20 0 4 . N o n

- l i n ear s h ort-term effects o f airb o r n e po llen lev els with

allergenic ca pacity on ast h m a e m erge ncy r o om ad m i ssi ons i n M a d r i d

, S p ai n. Clin . Exp. Allerg y 34:

8 71– 78

.

To lb ert PE, Klein M, Bu sico Metzg e r K, Peel J, Flanders WD, T o dd K, Mu lho lland JA, Ryan PB, Fru m k i n

H

. 20 00 . In ter im r e su lts of t

h e stud y o f p a rticu l ates an d h ealth in Atlan t a (SOPHIA). J. Ex po

. A nal

.

Environ. E p idem. 10 : 446

– 60.



### 43

### 44AUTH O R S AN D A C K N OWLE DGE M ENTS

Dani el L u t t i nge r (N YS D O H ) w a s t h e st udy ’s p r i n ci pal inv e stig ator, and Llo yd W ilso n , Ed ward Fitzg e rald,

Laiq u a t Hu sain , Kenn eth Al d o u s (NYSDOH), Ph illip Galv i n (NYSDEC), Larry Syzd ek (priv a te

aerob io l o g y co nsu ltan t ) an d Patrick Kinn ey (C o l u m b i a Un iv ersity) were co -in v e sti g ato r s. Add ition a l stud ydesi g n a n d st at i s t i cal -anal y si s co ns ul t a t i on was pr o v i d e d by Jo h n Ha wl ey and Sy ni -An Hw a n g ( N Y S D O H ),

Fra n k Buc k m a n (NYSDEC), T r acey Ho lloway (Unive rsity of Michiga n ) and Ken Dem e rjian (NYSDEC).

The st udy re port wa s a u thore d by Daniel L u ttinge r a n d Gre g g Recer (NYSDOH) a n d Pat r ick Kinney

(C ol um bi a U n i v e r si t y ). Fi el d sam p l i ng st af f i n cl u d ed Da n Li nce, Pat Pal m er, M i ke R i va ra, Ll oy d W i l s on

,

St epha ni e Sel m er, Jam e s Kam a ra, El l e n Fi t z si m m ons, Dan Sh ar ro n an d St an H ouse ( N YSDO H ) an d Ed

M a ri on , M i ke C h ri st op he rse n , B o b M u rway

, B o b El bu r n a nd Fra n k B u ckm a n ( N YS DEC ). La bo rat o ry st aff

i n cl ude d A b d u l B a ri

, Vi nce n t Fer r a r o an d Am arji t Nara ng ( N YSD OH)

. D a ta an alysis supp o r t staff in clu d e d

Jef f Hu gh es, Y ing W a ng , V a ler ie H a ley, Jam e s K a m a ra, Kim M azor, Ka ren N o lan

, Dan L u ttinge r, Gre g g

Recer, Sy ni-An Hwa n g, Lloy d Wilson a n d Laiqua t Husain (NYSDOH) a n d Phil Gal v in a n d Fra n k

Bu ck m a n (NYSDEC).

Th e st u d y was fu nd ed with p a rtial su ppo rt fro m th e Agency for Toxic Substan ces and Disease Re gistry

(AT SDR ) as pa rt of C o ope r ative Agreem ent V50/ ATV20 000 2- 1 1 and f r o m th e N e w Yor k State En erg y

an d Research Dev elop m en t Au thority (NYSER DA).



### 45

### 46TABLES



### 47Tabl e 1. H o spi t a l Em ergency D e part m e nt Vi si t s by R e si de nt s of B r on x an d M a nhat t a n St udy Area s

Ast hma Co ntr o l All-Ca use Hospi t al

Visits* Visits* * Visits

Bellev u e Ho sp ital Cen ter† 1 658 1 875 6 5 ,465

Beth Is rael Medical Ce nter 1 808 1 728 4 4 ,441

Br on x Leb a no n H o sp ital, Con c o ur s e 7 111 5 280 8 5 ,316

C a bri n i M e di cal C e nt er 13 5 22 4 5 237

Harlem Ho sp ital Cen t er† 54 8 25 9 8 748

Jaco bi M e di cal C e nt e r ( f o rm erl y B r on x M u ni ci pal H o s p i t a l

Cen t er)† 99 1 25 1 1 6 ,399

Leno x Hill Ho sp ital 14 3 32 4 5 202

Li ncol n M e di cal a n d M e nt al H eal t h C e nt er † 1 6 ,754 9 164 22 0, 4 70

Metro p o litan Hosp ital Cen t er† 40 3 34 1 9 703

M ont efi o re –Jac k D. Wei l e r

– Al bert Ei nst e i n 11 9 17 7 4 225

M ont efi o re M e di cal C e nt e r 78 2 77 5 1 6 ,617

Mo un t Si n a i Hosp ital 91 2 69 1 1 2 ,109

New Yo rk Ho sp ital (Corn e ll) 23 6 51 8 8 991

New Yo rk– P resb yterian Hosp ital 30 2 29 2 6 397

N e w Yo rk Un iv er sity Med ical Cen ter 19 5 90 8 1 4 ,022

North Cen t ral B r onx Ho sp ital† 75 9 21 3 1 2 ,474

Ou r La dy of M e rcy M e di cal C e nt er 26 5 26 6 5 759

St. Barn ab as Ho sp ital 84 8 84 1 1 5 ,256

Presb y terian Hosp ital-Allen Pav ilion 25 39 1 158

St . L uke ’s –R oos e v el t M e di cal C e nt er 11 4 15 2 3 980

St

. L uke ’s –R oo se vel t

– St . Lu ke’ s Di vi si o n 23 8 45 9 1 1 ,316

St. Vi ncent ’ s Hospital and Medical Center 65 5 1 111 2 7 ,970

TOTAL IN BRON X 2 9 ,987 1 8 ,974 42 2, 8 49

TOTAL IN MANHATTAN 5 014 6 914 17 8, 4 06

*Ast hm a case defi ned as pri m ary di ag no si s IC D-9 c o d e s 49 3 a n d, f o r c h i l d ren l e ss t h a n o n e y ear o f a g e,

46 6. 1 a n d 78 6.0 9

.

**C ontrol de fine d as prim ary diagnosis ICD-9 c odes 365, 366.0–366. 3, 531.0–531.3

, 532.0–532.3, 533.0–

533.3, 534.0–534.3, 535, 537 , 540–543, 558, 574–575, 590, 599.

† M an ag ed b y th e New York City Health an d Ho sp itals Corp oration

.



### 48Tab l e 2

. Mean Daily Em erg en cy Dep a rtm en t Visits fo r Asth m a an d C o n t ro l C o n d ition s (U.S. Cen s u s 2 000 )

Outc ome Sub group Bro n x Ma nh at ta n

Mean

Daily

Visits Po pul at i o n Crud e

Daily Rate

per 1 0 5 Mean

Daily

Visits Po pul at i o n Crud e Daily

Rate p er 10 5

All 43 25 4, 1 67 16 .9 7. 2 35 5, 6 55 2. 02

Male 20 12 2, 6 86 16 .3 3. 6 17 4, 0 51 2. 07

Fem a le 23 13 1, 4 81 17 .5 3. 7 18 1, 6 04 2. 04

Ast hma A g es 0–4 9. 6 2 2 ,015 43 .6 0. 90 1 0 ,661 8. 44

A g es 5–1 8 9. 8 7 1 ,314 * 13 .7 1. 3 3 0 ,361 * 4. 28

A g es 19– 34 7. 5 6 0 ,199 * 12 .5 1. 4 12 7, 7 71 * 1. 10

A g es 35– 64 14 8 1 ,841 17 .1 3. 1 14 6, 9 60 2. 11

Ages 6 5 + 2. 2 1 8 ,798 11 .7 0. 54 3 9 ,902 1. 35

Co ntr o l All 27 25 4, 1 67 10 .6 10 35 5, 6 55 2. 81

*Cens u s age range s were 5–19 and 20–35 for these categorie s, re sulting in a slight unde restim ate of the

cru d e rat e i n t h e 5

– 1 8 cat e g o r y a n d a sl i g ht ove rest i m at e of t h e c r u d e rat e i n t h e 1 9–34 ca t e g o r y

.



### 49Tabl e 3. M e a n ( S D) C o ncent r at i ons o f Ai r Pol l ut ant s a n d B i oae r os ol s M easu r e d i n B r o n x an d M a n h at t a n,

with Two

- C o m m u n ity Av erag e

Note: T h e t w o-c o mm unity average c o ncent r ations we re use d t o calculate relative ris k s. The values

r e pr esen t su m m ar y statist i cs o f all d a ily ob ser v ation s f r o m Jan u a r y 199 9 thr oug h Nov e m b er 20 00

.

Air C ontam inant Bron x M a nhat t a n Tw o-C o m m uni t y

A v er ag e (S D)*

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 (pp m ) 0. 02 8 ( 0. 01 8) 0. 02 1 ( 0. 01 6) 0. 02 4 ( 0. 01 7)

NO 2 ( ppm ) 0. 03 1 ( 0. 01 0) 0. 03 7 ( 0. 00 8) 0. 03 4 ( 0. 00 9 1)

SO 2 (p pm ) 0. 01 0 ( 0. 00 7) 0. 01 2 ( 0. 00 8) 0. 01 1 ( 0. 00 7 2)

FRM PM 2.5 ( μ g/ m 3 ) 15 .0 ( 8

. 3 5) 16 .7 ( 9

. 0 8) 15 .8 5 ( 8. 71 9)

Max PM 2.5 ( μ g/ m 3 ) 27 .6 ( 1 3. 5) 27 .6 ( 1 3. 5) 27 .6 2 ( 13

. 5 2)

Co arse PM ( μ g/m 3 ) 7. 69 ( 4. 8 4) 7. 10 ( 4. 0 8) 7. 39 4 ( 4. 45 9)

Sulfate ( μ g/m 3 ) 3. 85 ( 3. 4 3) 4. 00 ( 3. 4 2) 3. 92 4 ( 3. 42 3)

pH 5. 10 ( 0. 5 4) 5. 03 ( 0. 4 7) 5. 06 6 ( 0. 50 7 4)

Ele m en tal (So o t) Carbon

( μ g/m 3 ) 1. 19 ( 0. 6 4) 1. 31 ( 0. 6 4) 1. 25 2 ( 0. 64 5)

Or ga ni c C a r bon ( μ g/m 3 ) 3. 23 ( 0. 8 1) 3. 06 ( 0. 8 3) 3. 14 4 ( 0. 82 2)

To tal Metals (ng / m 3 ) 95.9 ( 1 21.1) 91 .0 ( 7 5. 1) 93 .4 5 ( 98

. 1 0)

Tot a l Al dehy des ( μ g/m 3 ) 15 .9 2 ( 8. 82 ) 16 .2 0 ( 10

. 6 2) 16 .0 6 ( 9. 71 7)

To tal Po llen (# /m 3 ) 20 .8 1 ( 13 5. 0) 13 .1 5 ( 84

. 5 3) 16 .9 8 ( 11 0. 2 6)

To tal Mo ld (# /m 3 ) 51 8. 8 ( 81 4. 9) 48 9. 9 ( 78 6. 0) 50 4. 3 ( 80 0. 4)

*T he t w o-c o m m uni ty avera g es a r e c o m put ed as t h e a v erage of the two c o m m unity-specific m eans (or

st anda rd de vi at i o ns)

.



### 50Tabl e 4a. R e l a t i v e R i s k s a n d 95% C o nfi d enc e I n t e r v al s fo r Ast h m a ED Vi si t s as F u nct i o n of 5-Day M e a n

Ai r P o l l u t i o n an d B i oae ro s ol s f r o m Si ngl e-Pol l ut a n t M o del s

No te: Exp o s ure in crem en ts u s ed to co m p u t e RRs were th e two

- co m m u n ity av erag e con c en tration s (Tab le

3). Bol d text i ndicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level.

Air C ontam inant Bron x M a nhat t a n

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 06 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 19 )

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 (warm season) 1. 08 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 12 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 19 )

NO 2 1. 10 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 18 ) 0. 95 ( 0. 7 2, 1. 25 )

SO 2 1. 11 ( 1. 0 6, 1. 17 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 8 8, 1. 12 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 15 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 09 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 15 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 18 )

Co arse PM 1. 02 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 04 ) 1. 02 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 07 )

Sulfate 1. 03 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 06 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 13 )

pH 0. 99 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 00 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 02 )

Ele m en tal (So o t) Carbon 1. 04 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 09 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 19 )

Or ga ni c C a r bon 1. 05 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 17 ) 1. 20 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 49 )

To tal Metals 1. 02 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 05 ) 1. 02 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 15 )

Tot a l Al dehy des 1. 02 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 04 ) 1. 03 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 10 )

To tal Po llen 1. 00 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 00) * 1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 02 )

To tal Mo ld 1. 01 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 03 ) 1. 01 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 06 )

*W h e n RR an d CI bo und s app ear equ a l, it is due to ro und ing

.



### 51Tabl e 4b . C o m p ari s on o f R e l a t i v e R i sk s ( 9 5% C o nfid en ce In terv als) C o m p u t ed Using Alternativ e

Co n c en tration In crem en ts

N o te: Th e f o llow i n g air p o l l u tan t s w e r e sign if ican t i n t h e Br onx r e g r ession m o d e ls (Tab le 4 a )

. I n th e f i r s t

co lu m n of resu lts, we u s e th e m ean po llu tan t con c en tr ation as the RR i n crem ent (as i n Ta ble 4a). In t h e

second col u m n of res u lts, we use t h e standa rd de vi ation p o llu tion con cen t r atio n as t h e RR in crem en t. No te

th e ch ang e i n relativ e size of the fiv e RRs. Bo l d tex t i ndicates statistical signi ficance at t h e 0.05 level.

Air C ontam inant Mean Inc r em ents SD Inc r em ents

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 06 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 04 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 07 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 03 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 05 ) *

Max PM 2.5 1. 09 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 15 ) 1. 04 ( 1. 0 2, 1. 07 )

NO 2 1. 10 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 18 ) 1. 02 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 05 ) *

SO 2 1. 11 ( 1. 0 6, 1. 17 ) 1. 07 ( 1. 0 4, 1. 11 )

*Choice of i n crem ent do es not alter statistical significa nce at the α = 0. 0 5 l e vel ; t h e a ppea r an ce of 9 5 % C I

i n cl udi ng 1 i s d u e t o r o u n d i n g di ffe re nces bet w ee n t h e t w o i n crem ent s

.



### 52Tabl e 5. R e l a t i v e R i s k s fr om R e gressi o n s B a se d o n Dai l y M a xi m u m Hou r l y (S O 2 and N O 2 ) o r D a ily

M a xi m u m 3-Ho u r ( E l e m e nt al and Or gani c C a rb o n ) E x p o s u res

No te: B o ld tex t ind i cates statistical sig n i fican ce at th e 0.05 level.

Contam inant Inc r em ent used t o

calculate RR Bron x M a nhat t a n

NO 2 (p pm ) 0. 04 9 2 1. 12 ( 1. 0 4, 1. 20 ) 0. 97 ( 0. 7 5, 1. 25 )

SO 2 (p pm ) 0. 02 2 7 1. 07 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 12 ) 0. 96 ( 0. 8 6, 1. 07 )

Ele m en tal (So o t)

Carbo n ( μ g/ m 3) 1. 97 8 7 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 09 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 16 )

Or ga ni c C a r bon

( μ g/m 3) 3. 70 1 4 1. 05 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 16 ) 1. 10 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 32 )



### 53Tab l e 6

. Relativ e Varian ce i n Asth m a ED Visits Exp l ain e d b y Variab les In clud ed in M o d e l fo r Daily

M a x i mu m 8

- H o u r O 3

Note: DE V/DF re prese n ts a n estim ate of variance e xplaine d.

O 3 Date

(nat ural s p line

18 de g rees of

free dom ) Tem p erature

(nat ural s p line

3 deg r ees o f

free dom ) D a y of W e ek

M odel DE V 6. 3 81 0. 1 3. 1 31 0. 5

M odel DF 1 18 3 6

DEV/ DF 6. 3 45 .0 1. 0 51 .8



### 54Table 7. Relative Ris k s (95% C o nfi d ence Intervals) for Mean C h ange in C ontam in an t Con cen t r atio ns for

M odel s Excl udi ng Tem p erat ure as C ova ri at e

No te: B o ld tex t ind i cates statistical sig n i fican ce at th e 0.05 level.

Contam inant Bron x M a nhat t a n

SO 2 1. 11 ( 1. 0 6, 1. 17 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 8 8, 1. 11 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 08 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 13 ) 1. 00 ( 0. 9 0, 1. 13 )

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 06 ( 1. 0 2, 1. 10 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 16 )



### 55Tabl e 8. R e l a t i v e R i s k s (9 5% C o nfi d ence I n t e r v al s) fr om Poi sso n R e gre ssi on s of A s t h m a ED Vi si t s o n P o l l e n a n d

Mo ld Categories

Va ria b le Increment used to

calculate RRs

(#/m 3 )* Seas on RR ( 95% CI)

Bro n x Ma nh at ta n

Po llen

Annu al To tal Po llen

Season al To tal Po llen

Seasonal Grass Pollen

Seasonal T r ee Pollen

Seasonal Ragwee d

Po llen 16 .9 8

16 .9 8

0. 43

15 .6

0. 44 Jan–Dec

Ap r 1– N ov 1

May 1

– O c t 1

Ap r 1– Jul 1

Au g 1 –N o v 1 1. 00 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 00 ) **

1. 00 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 00 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 00 )

1. 00 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 00 )

0. 99 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 00 ) 1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 02 )

1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 02 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 02 )

1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 02 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 01 )

Mold

Annu al To tal Mo ld

Season al To tal Mo ld

Seasonal Basidos p ores

Seasonal Ascos p ore s

Seasonal Mitospores

Seasonal Sm all Spores

Seasonal La rge Spores

Seasonal Alterna r i a

Seasonal

Asp e rg illu s/Pen icilliu m

Seasonal Clad ospo rium 50 4. 3 3

50 4. 3 3

19 3. 6 8

40 .9 2

26 5. 6 1

48 4. 9

13 .3

12 .1 1

4. 17

24 6. 1 5 Jan–Dec

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1

Ap r 1– Dec 1 1. 01 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 03 )

1. 01 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 03 )

1. 02 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 03 )

0. 99 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 01 )

1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 03 )

1. 02 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 04 )

1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 02 )

1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 02 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 03 )

1. 01 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 03 ) 1. 01 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 06 )

1. 01 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 06 )

1. 03 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 07 )

1. 01 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 05 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 03 )

1. 01 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 06 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 02 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 02 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 01 )

1. 00 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 03 )

*A n nual m ean f o r

eac h pol l e n o r m o l d cat eg ory wa s used for t h e i n crem ent to calculate t h e RR

** Wh en R R an d C I bo u n d s a ppea r e q ual , i t i s due t o ro u ndi ng



### 56Tabl e 9. R e l a t i v e R i s k s (9 5% C o nfi d ence In terv als) fo r Ast h m a ED Visits as Fun c tion o f 5-Day Mean Air Po ll u tio n

fr om Two- Pol l u t a nt M o del s

No te: Po llu tan ts in clud ed h e re were t h o s e th at were sign if ican t pred ict o rs of ED v i sits in si n g l e-p o llu t an t m o d els.

Expos ure inc r em ents use d to com pute RRs were the t w o- com m unity average c o nce n tra tio n s (Tab le 3). B o ld tex t

indicates statistical signi fica nce at the 0.05 level.

Contam inant Co n tro lled with RR, Bronx RR, Manh attan

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 FRM PM 2.5 1. 06 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 19 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 04 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 09 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 19 )

NO 2 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 07 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 21 )

SO 2 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 20 )

FRM PM 2.5 M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 03 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 14 )

Max PM 2.5 0. 99 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 06 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 8 9, 1. 23 )

NO 2 1. 03 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 09 ) 1. 08 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 23 )

SO 2 1. 01 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 06 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 17 )

Max PM 2.5 M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 07 ( 1. 0 2, 1. 13 ) 1. 02 ( 0. 8 9, 1. 17 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 09 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 20 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 7 9, 1. 23 )

NO 2 1. 07 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 14 ) 1. 10 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 31 )

SO 2 1. 05 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 11 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 0, 1. 21 )

NO 2 M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 08 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 17 ) 0. 91 ( 0. 6 8, 1. 21 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 06 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 16 ) 0. 83 ( 0. 5 9, 1. 17 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 04 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 14 ) 0. 84 ( 0. 5 9, 1. 20 )

SO 2 1. 02 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 12 ) 0. 95 ( 0. 6 9, 1. 30 )

SO 2 M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 11 ( 1. 05

, 1. 17) 0. 99 ( 0. 8 8, 1. 12 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 11 ( 1. 0 4, 1. 18 ) 0. 97 ( 0. 8 5, 1. 11 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 09 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 16 ) 0. 98 ( 0. 8 5, 1. 12 )

NO 2 1. 11 ( 1. 0 4, 1. 17 ) 1. 01 ( 0. 8 7, 1. 16 )



### 57Tab l e 1 0 . Correlation s am o n g Key Ai r Po llu tan t s in B r onx Stud y C o mm u n ity

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 NO 2 SO 2 FRM PM 2.5 Max PM 2.5

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 00

. . . .

NO 2 0. 03 1. 00

. . .

SO 2 -0 .3 5 0. 47 1. 00

. .

FRM PM 2.5 0. 19 0. 61 0. 45 1. 00

.

Max PM 2.5 0. 35 0. 55 0. 28 0. 78 1. 00



### 58Tab l e 1 1 . Relativ e Risk s (95 % C o nfid en ce In terv als) for C o n t ro l ED Visits in Relation to Fiv e Po llu tan t s Showing

Sig n i fican t Associatio n s with Ast h m a ED Visits in Bro n x

No te: Exp o s ure in crem en ts u s ed to co m p u t e RRs were th e two-com m unity average conc en tration s (Tab le 3). B o ld

text indicates statistical si gnificance at the 0.05 level.

Bron x M a nhat t a n

Air C ontam inant Asth m a RRs Co n tro l RRs Asth m a RRs Co n tro l RRs

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 06 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 00 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 05 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 19 ) 1. 01 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 11 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 ) 1. 08 ( 1. 0 2, 1. 14 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 15 ) 1. 00 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 08 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 09 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 15 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 11 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 18 ) 1. 07 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 19 )

NO 2 1. 10 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 18 ) 1. 07 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 18 ) 0. 95 ( 0. 7 2, 1. 25 ) 1. 03 ( 0. 8 4, 1. 28 )

SO 2 1. 11 ( 1. 0 6, 1. 17 ) 1. 02 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 10 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 8 8, 1. 12 ) 1. 01 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 12 )



### 59Tab l e 1 2 . Relativ e Risk s (95 % C o nfid en ce In terv als) for As th m a ED Visits fro m Sin g l e-Po llu t a n t Mod els, Stratified

by Se x

No te: Exp o s ure in crem en ts u s ed to co m p u t e RRs were th e two

- co m m u n ity av erag e con c en tration s (Tab le 3). B o ld

text indicates statistical si gnificance at the 0.05 level.

(a) B r o n x

Contam inant Male Fem a le All

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 06 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 13 ) 1. 06 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 12 ) 1. 06 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 01 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 08 ) 1. 08 ( 1. 0 2, 1. 15 ) 1. 05 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 10 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 06 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 15 ) 1. 13 ( 1. 0 5, 1. 21 ) 1. 09 ( 1. 0 3, 1. 15 )

NO 2 1. 07 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 19 ) 1. 13 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 26 ) 1. 10 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 18 )

SO 2 1. 08 ( 1. 0 0, 1. 17 ) 1. 14 ( 1. 0 6, 1. 23 ) 1. 11 ( 1. 0 6, 1. 17 )

(b ) M a nhattan

Contam inant Male Fem a le All

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 13 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 35 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 8 3, 1. 17 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 20 )

FRM PM 2.5 0. 95 ( 0. 8 2, 1. 10 ) 1. 12 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 29 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 4, 1. 15 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 01 ( 0. 8 3, 1. 27 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 8 8, 1. 28 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 9 0, 1. 18 )

NO 2 0. 75 ( 0. 5 1, 1. 11 ) 1. 16 ( 0. 8 0, 1. 69 ) 0. 95 ( 0. 7 2, 1. 25 )

SO 2 0. 90 ( 0. 7 5, 1. 07 ) 1. 08 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 29 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 8 8, 1. 12 )



### 60Tab l e 1 3 . Relativ e Risk s (95 % C o nfid en ce In terv als) for As th m a ED Visits fro m Sin g l e-Po llu t a n t Mod els, Stratified

by A g e

No te: Exp o s ure in crem en ts u s ed to co m p u t e RRs were th e two-com m unity average con centrati o ns (Table 3). B o ld

text indicates statistical si gnificance at the 0.05 level.

(a) Bron x

Age Categ o ry (y ea rs)

Contam inant 0– 4 5 –18 1 9–3 4 3 5–6 4 6 5–u p

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 08 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 19 ) 0. 94 ( 0. 8 5, 1. 03 ) 1. 11 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 23 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 13 ) 1. 29 ( 1. 0 8, 1. 53 )

FRM PM 2.5 1. 00 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 10 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 08 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 9 5, 1. 16 ) 1. 14 ( 1. 0 6, 1. 23 ) 1. 01 ( 0. 8 4, 1. 22 )

Max PM 2.5 1. 04 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 17 ) 1. 03 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 15 ) 1. 12 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 27 ) 1. 14 ( 1. 0 4, 1. 25 ) 1. 07 ( 0. 8 6, 1. 36 )

NO 2 1. 13 ( 0. 9 6, 1. 33 ) 1. 14 ( 0. 9 7, 1. 34 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 8 2, 1. 19 ) 1. 13 ( 0. 9 9, 1. 30 ) 0. 85 ( 0. 6 1, 1. 20 )

SO 2 1. 13 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 26 ) 1. 03 ( 0. 9 2, 1. 16 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 9 3, 1. 21 ) 1. 18 ( 1. 0 7, 1. 30 ) 1. 12 ( 0. 8 8, 1. 42 )

(b) M a nhat t a n

A g e Ca te go ry (y ea r s )

Contam inant 0– 4 5 –18 1 9–3 4 3 5–6 4 65 –u p

M a x 8- ho u r O 3 1. 24 ( 0. 8 4, 1. 82 ) 1. 11 ( 0. 8 3, 1. 49 ) 0. 90 ( 0. 6 8, 1. 18 ) 1. 09 ( 0. 9 0, 1. 30 ) 0. 96 ( 0. 6 1, 1. 53 )

FRM PM 2.5 0. 96 ( 0. 7 3, 1. 27 ) 0. 88 ( 0. 7 0, 1. 11 ) 1. 25 ( 1. 0 1, 1. 55 ) 1. 06 ( 0. 9 1, 1. 23 ) 0. 91 ( 0. 6 3, 1. 33 )

Max PM 2.5 0. 99 ( 0. 6 7, 1. 44 ) 0. 82 ( 0. 5 9, 1. 12 ) 1. 31 ( 0. 9 8, 1. 78 ) 1. 05 ( 0. 8 6, 1. 29 ) 0. 94 ( 0. 5 7, 1. 55 )

NO 2 0. 99 ( 0. 4 4, 2. 19 ) 0. 54 ( 0. 2 8, 1. 02 ) 1. 40 ( 0. 7 6, 2. 58 ) 0. 96 ( 0. 6 4, 1. 45 ) 0. 99 ( 0. 3 5, 2. 77 )

SO 2 0. 82 ( 0. 5 9, 1. 15 ) 1. 03 ( 0. 7 7, 1. 37 ) 1. 01 ( 0. 7 6, 1. 35 ) 1. 04 ( 0. 8 6, 1. 25 ) 0. 88 ( 0. 5 7, 1. 37 )



### 61

### 62FIGURES



### 63Figur e 1. Ai r M o ni t o ri n g L o cat i o ns i n M a n h a t t a n an d B r o n x (s qu ares ). S h ad ed zi p co d e areas

ind i c a te c o mmunitie s whe r e e m e r g e nc y de p a rtme nt c a s e s re si d e d.



### mi l e s 0 1. 5 3 104 74 10459

1 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 3 6 100 20

1 0 0 1 6 1 0 4 5

5

10 454 10 451 1045 6

100 12

1001 4 1 0 0 1 1

1 0 0 03

1 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 1 0 

### IS 1 5 5 MS 5 2 S o ut h B r o n x S t ud y A r e a

M a b e l D e a n B a c o n HS

M a nha t t a n S t ud y A r e a A i r M o n i t o ri n g L o c a t i o n H

u d

s o n R i v e r

64F i gu re 2. Map of S t u d y A r eas a n d Hos p i t a l s C o n t ri bu ti ng Em er g e n c y Departm e n t Dat a

0 2

. 5 5



### mi l e s M7

M9 M8 M6 M5 M4 M3 M2 B4

B5 B6

B7 B2

B3

M1 B1

M1 3

M1 2 M1 4 M1 1 M1 0 B8

M a p Le g e n d K e y t o H

o sp

i t al

C

o d e s

B r onx

B 1 : O u r

Lad y of M e r c y M

edi c a l C

ent

e r

B2 : N o r t h

C

e n t r a l Br

o n x H

o s p i t a l

B 3 : M

ont

ef i o

r e M

e d i c a l C

ent

e r

B 4 : Ja

co

b i M

e d i ca

l C

e n t e r

B 5 : M ont

ef i o

r e M

e d i c a l C

ent

e r - W e i l e

r H

o s p i t a l

B6 : St

. Ba r n a b a s H

o s p i t a l

B 7 : B

r onx

- L

ebanon H

o s p i t a l C

ent

e r - C

onc

our

s e D

i v

B 8 : L

i n

c ol n M e di c

a l C

e n t er

M

a n h a tta

n

M

1 : P

r es

by

t e r i an

H

o s p i t al

-

A

l l e

n P

a v i l i on

M

2 : N e w Y

o r k

- P

r es

by

t e r i an

H

o s p i t a l

M

3 : Ha r l e

m Ho

s p i t a l

M

4 : S

t

. Luk e' s

R

oos

ev

e l t H

o s p i t a l

M

5 : M ount S

i na

i H

o s p i t a l

M

6 : M e t r opol i t a n H

o s p i t a l C

e n t er

M

7 : Lenox H

i l l H

o s p i t a l

M

8 : Ne w Y

o r k

Ho

s p i t a l

M

9 : S

t

. Luk e' s

R

oos

ev

e l t H

o s p i t a l

-

R

o os

e v e l t D

i v

M

1 0

: N

e w Y

o r k

U

n i v

e r s i ty

M

e d i c a l C

e n t e r

M

1 1 : B e l l e

v ue

H

o s p i t a l C

ent

e r

M

1 2 : B e th

Is

r a e l M

e d i c a l C

e n t e r

M

1 3

: C

a b r i n

i M

edi c a l C

ent

er

M

1 4

: S

t

. V

i nc

ent ' s H

o s p i t a l

M a nha

t t a

n S

t ud

y A

r ea Br

o n x St u

d y A

r e a St u

d y H

o s p i t a l s

65100 Fig u res 3

. Seasonal Pattern s o f Ho sp ital ED Ad m i ssio n s fo r Ast h m a Fitted with 18 DF Natural Sp lin e, for

( a ) B r onx an d ( b) Manh attanDailyasthma EDvisits-- ManhattanDailyasthmaEDvisits--Bronx (a)

80

60

40

20

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N

0 200 400 600

Da y of S t u d y

20

(b )

15

10

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N

0 200 400 600 Da y of S t u d y



### 66 5Figu re 4. Day

- o f -We ek Pattern s Plotted f o r Ho spita l E D Adm i ssions fo r Asthm a fo r (a) Br on x a n d ( b )

M a nhat t a n Not e : C e nt ral l i n e i n bo x = m e di an. U p per an d l o we r l i n es o f box = 75 th and 2 5 th p e rcentiles,

respectively. Ends of whis kers re present ± 1. 5 × interqu a rtile rang e. Lin e s ou tsid e of wh isk e rs rep r esen t

o u tlyin g ob serv ati o n s

.

20 40 60 80 100DailyasthmaEDvisits--Bronx 

### (a)

Su n M o n Tu e W e d Thu F r i Sat

Da y of We e k

5 10 15 20DailyasthmaEDvisits--Manhattan 

### (b)

Su n M o n Tu e W e d Thu F r i Sat

Da y of We e k



### 67Fi gu re 5. Ast h m a ED Vi si t s Pl ot t e d ag ai nst Tem p erat ure f o r ( a ) B r on x a n d (b ) M a nhat t a n

100



### (a)

80

60

40

20

20 40 60 80

Av erag e dail y te m p erat u r e

20 

### (b)

15

10

5

20 40 60 80

Av erag e dail y te m p erat u r eDailyasthma EDvisits-- ManhattanDailyasthmaEDvisits--Bronx



### 68Fig u re 6

. Ag e Distribu tion s o f Stud y C o mm u n ities (U.S. Cen s u s 20 00)

0 20

, 00 0 40

, 00 0 60

, 00 0 80

, 00 0 10 0, 0 00 12 0, 0 00 14 0, 0 00 16 0, 0 00

A g es 0-4 A g es 5-1 9 A g es 20 -34 A g es 35 -64 A g es 65 +Population

Br o n x

M a nh at t a n



### 69Figur e 7. R e la tive R isk f or A s th ma E D V isits in B r onx a n d Ma nha tta n f o r 1 4 ke y Conta m ina n ts f or Pr ima r y

An al y s i s wi t h B a s e -C as e M o d e l

. No t e : E r ro r bars repres ent 95 % con f i d ence i n t e rv al s o n t h e ri s k . R R s

cal cu l a t e d fo r mean i n creas e i n co nt am i n an t co n cent r at i o n (fro m T a b l e 3

, l a s t col u m n ). T h e R R s an d

co nfi d en ce i n t erval s p r es en t ed h ere are t h e s am e as t h o s e p r es en t ed n u m eri cal l y i n T abl e 4a.



## Bronx

0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9

1 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4

M

a x 8 hr O

3

NO 2 SO 2

FR

M

2

.5

Ma

x P M

2

.

5

Co a

r s e P

M Sul f a te pH

El

emental Car bo

n

Or

gan i c C

a

r b

o

n

Tot. Me

t a ls

Tot. A

l deh y d

es

Tot. Po

lle

n Tot. Mo

l dRelative Risk (a)



## Manhattan

0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9

1 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4

M

a x 8 hr O

3

NO 2 SO 2

FR

M

2

.5

Ma

x P M

2

.

5

Co a

r s e P

M Sul f a te pH

El

emental Car bo

n

Or

gan i c C

a

r b

o

n

Tot. Me

t a ls

Tot. A

l deh y d

es

Tot. Po

lle

n Tot. Mo

l dRelative Risk (b)

70RelativeRiskRelativeRiskRelativeRisk0.900.951.001.051.100.900.951.001.051.100.900.951.001.051.10 Figur e 8. La g D e pe nd e n c y of Re la t iv e Ri sk f o r

Asthma in B r o nx a n d Ma n h a tta n f o r Ex a m ple P o l lu t a n ts

(P M

2.5 , SO

2 a nd O

3 ). No t e : Erro r bars repres en t 95 % con f i d ence i n t e rv al s o n t h e ri s k

.

Br onx FRM PM

2.5 Ma nh a t ta n FR M PM

2.5RelativeRiskRelativeRiskRelativeRisk0.900.951.001.051.100.900.951.001.051.100.900.951.001.051.10

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

la g s la g s

B r onx O

3 Ma nh a t ta n O

3

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

la g s la g s

B r onx SO

2 Ma nh a t ta n SO

2

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

la g s la g s

71