To:

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Re: Ito Data Clarification

From: "Ito, Kazuhiko" <Kazuhiko.Ito@nyumc.org>

To: Beth Hassett-Sipple/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/08/2009 09:46 AM

Subject: FW: Quantitative effect estimates from figures in Ito et al . (2007)

Hi Beth,

Attached are the numerical results for Figures 7 and 8.

The email exchange with Young shown below also notes that I had mislabeled SO2 

and CO in Figure 7.

I will send the distribution info later today tomorrow.

Thanks!

Kaz

________________________________________

From: Ito, Kazuhiko

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:22 PM

To: Kim.Jee-Young@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: kaz@env.med.nyu.edu; Luben.Tom@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Quantitative effect estimates from figures in Ito et al. (2007)

Hi Young,

You were right. In Figure 7, I mislabeled "SO2" and "CO" (they are switched). 

Attached are the numerical results for Figure 7 and 8. Also, I did not run 

two-pollutant models for all-year (or cold season). Let me know if you need 

more info.

Kaz

-----Original Message-----

From: Kim.Jee-Young@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kim.Jee-Young@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tue 7/8/2008 2:40 PM

To: Ito, Kazuhiko

Cc: kaz@env.med.nyu.edu; Luben.Tom@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Quantitative effect estimates from figures in Ito et al. (2007)

Hi Kaz,

After staring at your paper for a while, I think I found an error on

Figure 7. Assuming that Figure 8 and the text on page S53 (first

column, first paragraph) is correct since they seem to match each other

pretty well, I think your CO and SO2 effect estimates for the warm

season in Figure 7 are switched. Let me know what you think.

Thanks, young
 "Ito, Kazuhiko"

 <Kazuhiko.Ito@ny

 umc.org> To

 Jee-Young Kim/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

 07/03/2008 10:37 <kaz@env.med.nyu.edu>

 AM cc

 Tom Luben/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

 Subject

 RE: Quantitative effect estimates

 from figures in Ito et al. (2007)

Hi Young,

Yes, I can get you numerical results for any plots shown in the paper.

I don't have the paper in front of me now (I am at a non-NYU location),

and I have to check my old computer to see if I ran multi-pollutant

models. I have to check my code to plot the results regarding the SO2

estimates. I'll do this over the weekend.

Thanks!

Kaz

________________________________

From: Kim.Jee-Young@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Kim.Jee-Young@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 3:51 PM

To: kaz@env.med.nyu.edu

Cc: Luben.Tom@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Quantitative effect estimates from figures in Ito et al. (2007)

Hi Kaz,

In Ito et al. (2007), the publication in the special issue that we

sponsored, you provide lots of effect estimates in the form of figures

(Figures 7 and 8). Is it possible to get quantitative effect estimates

and the increments of exposures? Also, did you also have multipollutant

results (like from Figure 8) from the all year analyses? Lastly, the

effect estimate for SO2 in the warm season analyses, Model C in Figure 7

(which seems to have a central estimate of about 1.16) doesn't seem to

agree with the value in Figure 8 (which in the text you note as 1.20

[95% CI: 1.13, 1.28] per 6 ppb).

Please let me know if you would like me to clarify any of my questions.

Thanks so much!

young

=================================
ItoFigure7

# Figure7.txt

Note:

'ay': all-year

'aa': April-August

'nm': November-March

A', 'B', 'C' are models that are discribed in the manuscript.

########## PM2.5

RR LL95 UL95 Increm

pm25.ay.A 1.1053 1.0611 1.1512 24.23229

pm25.aa.A 1.234 1.1535 1.3201 25.39827

pm25.nm.A 1.0421 0.9971 1.089 21.71379

pm25.ay.B 1.1038 1.0601 1.1494 24.23229

pm25.aa.B 1.2276 1.1512 1.3091 25.39827

pm25.nm.B 1.0572 1.0085 1.1083 21.71379

pm25.ay.C 1.1161 1.0717 1.1624 24.23229

pm25.aa.C 1.2126 1.1315 1.2997 25.39827

pm25.nm.C 1.062 1.0159 1.1103 21.71379

########## O3

RR LL95 UL95 Increm

o3.ay.A 1.073 0.9768 1.1787 60.125

o3.aa.A 1.2706 1.1456 1.4093 53.45

o3.nm.A 0.79 0.754 0.8277 24.5

o3.ay.B 1.0079 0.918 1.1067 60.125

o3.aa.B 1.1584 1.0449 1.2841 53.45

o3.nm.B 0.7872 0.75 0.8263 24.5

o3.ay.C 1.0953 1.0036 1.1954 60.125

o3.aa.C 1.3214 1.2014 1.4533 53.45

o3.nm.C 0.8042 0.7707 0.8391 24.5

########## NO2

RR LL95 UL95 Increm

no2.ay.A 1.1135 1.0667 1.1624 24

no2.aa.A 1.3055 1.2232 1.3934 25.225

no2.nm.A 0.9777 0.9299 1.0279 22.925

no2.ay.B 1.1134 1.0629 1.1663 24

no2.aa.B 1.297 1.2067 1.3941 25.225

no2.nm.B 1.0009 0.9433 1.062 22.925

no2.ay.C 1.1409 1.0895 1.1947 24

no2.aa.C 1.3208 1.2294 1.4191 25.225

no2.nm.C 0.9859 0.9318 1.0431 22.925

1 of 2

ItoFigure7
ItoFigure7

########## CO

RR LL95 UL95 Increm

co.ay.A 1.0895 1.0389 1.1426 1.79

co.aa.A 1.2408 1.1527 1.3356 1.32225

co.nm.A 1.076 1.0177 1.1376 2.01425

co.ay.B 1.0873 1.0375 1.1396 1.79

co.aa.B 1.2377 1.147 1.3356 1.32225

co.nm.B 1.0904 1.0293 1.1551 2.01425

co.ay.C 1.0852 1.0347 1.1381 1.79

co.aa.C 1.1528 1.0657 1.247 1.32225

co.nm.C 1.104 1.0448 1.1665 2.01425

########## SO2

RR LL95 UL95 Increm

so2.ay.A 1.0608 1.0141 1.1097 13.5

so2.aa.A 1.1813 1.1143 1.2523 6

so2.nm.A 1.0827 1.037 1.1304 13.925

so2.ay.B 1.0842 1.0328 1.1382 13.5

so2.aa.B 1.173 1.1025 1.2479 6

so2.nm.B 1.1283 1.0736 1.1858 13.925

so2.ay.C 1.1215 1.0667 1.1791 13.5

so2.aa.C 1.2022 1.1277 1.2816 6

so2.nm.C 1.1203 1.0671 1.1763 13.925

2 of 2

ItoFigure7
ItoFigure8

# Figure8.txt

##########PM2.5

RR ll95 ul95 beta se t increment

Alone 1.212664 1.131461 1.299694 0.007591 0.001392 5.45 25.4

w/O3 1.165302 1.085143 1.251382 0.006023 0.001432 4.21 25.4

w/NO2 1.088597 1.007302 1.176452 0.003342 0.001559 2.14 25.4

w/CO 1.178746 1.094543 1.269426 0.006474 0.001489 4.35 25.4

w/SO2 1.126576 1.042317 1.217648 0.004692 0.001561 3 25.4

##########O3

RR ll95 ul95 beta se t increment

Alone 1.321697 1.201576 1.453826 0.005213 0.000909 5.74 53.5

w/PM 1.237016 1.116336 1.370742 0.003976 0.000979 4.06 53.5

w/NO2 1.188869 1.077742 1.311454 0.003234 0.000936 3.46 53.5

w/CO 1.345261 1.224887 1.477464 0.005544 0.000894 6.2 53.5

w/SO2 1.246266 1.131341 1.372865 0.004115 0.000923 4.46 53.5

##########NO2

RR ll95 ul95 beta se t increment

Alone 1.320455 1.229132 1.418562 0.011031 0.001451 7.6 25.2

w/PM 1.288295 1.1834 1.402488 0.010052 0.001719 5.85 25.2

w/O3 1.258434 1.166056 1.35813 0.009122 0.001544 5.91 25.2

w/CO 1.35688 1.240796 1.483824 0.012111 0.001811 6.69 25.2

w/SO2 1.33205 1.18883 1.492524 0.011378 0.002303 4.94 25.2

##########CO

RR ll95 ul95 beta se t increment

Alone 1.152525 1.065611 1.246527 0.107542 0.030306 3.55 1.32

w/PM 1.101459 1.008807 1.202621 0.073209 0.033962 2.16 1.32

w/O3 1.178573 1.092348 1.271604 0.124473 0.029366 4.24 1.32

w/NO2 0.953233 0.867348 1.047623 -0.03628 0.036495 -0.99 1.32

w/SO2 1.068107 0.982403 1.161288 0.049915 0.032329 1.54 1.32

##########SO2

RR ll95 ul95 beta se t increment

Alone 1.202199 1.127696 1.281625 0.030692 0.00544 5.64 6

w/PM 1.168114 1.083681 1.259124 0.025898 0.00638 4.06 6

w/O3 1.153326 1.079916 1.231725 0.023775 0.005592 4.25 6

w/NO2 0.990193 0.896403 1.093797 -0.00164 0.008462 -0.19 6

w/CO 1.176392 1.097233 1.261262 0.027075 0.005924 4.57 6

1 of 1

ItoFigure8
To:

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Re: Ito - Response to PM Data Request

To: Beth Hassett-Sipple/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Ito, Kazuhiko" <Kazuhiko.Ito@nyumc.org>

Date: 06/18/2009 12:13PM

Subject: (Finally) Distribution for NYC PM2.5 (Ito et al., 2007).

Hi Beth,

I am terribly sorry about the delay. I had another

grant deadline yesterday and everything else was

put on the back burner for a week.

Here's the information you requested.

I am listing the distribution for:

(1) the average of multiple monitors; and

(2) the "highest reporting monitor".

By "highest reporting monitor", I mean the monitor

that had the highest mean value, which was

site ID = 360610056. This site was every-3rd-day site.

Let me know if you need more details or if I am missing something.

Thanks!

Kaz

(1) the average of multiple monitors:

 N Mean 0% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

1999-2002 1297 15.1 3 32 34 36 39 43 81

By year:

1999 209 15.1 4 33 34 36 38 39 46

2000 358 15.8 3 33 34 36 40 43 57

2001 365 15.4 3 33 34 34 40 44 49

2002 365 14.0 3 31 32 37 39 44 81

(2) the "highest reporting monitor".
 N Mean 0% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

1999-2002 428 17.6 3 35 36 38 41 45 79

(3) The monitor ID's from which the average was computed:

Note that the 2007 Ito et al. noted that there were 30 monitors, but

in fact there were 31.

340030003

340130011

340130015

340130016

340171003

340172002

340310005

340390004

340390006

340392003

360590008

360590012

361191002

360050080

360050083

360050110

360470011

360470052

360470076

360470122

360610010

360610056**highest mean

360610062

360610079

360610128

360810094

360810096

360810097

360810124

360850055

360850067

=================