**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 an d 8. The email exchange with Young shown below also note s that I had mislabeled SO2 and CO in Figure 7. I will send the distribution info later today tomor row. 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 fig ures 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 fig ures 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 p age S53 (first column, first paragraph) is correct since they seem to match each other pretty well, I think your CO and SO2 effect estimat es 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: Quantitat ive 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 specia l issue that we sponsored, you provide lots of effect estimates in the form of figures (Figures 7 and 8). Is it possible to get quantitat ive effect estimates and the increments of exposures? Also, did you als o have multipollutant results (like from Figure 8) from the all year anal yses? 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 m anuscript.
########## 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 1.3 2 w/O3 1.178573 1.092348 1.271604 0.124473 0.029366 4.24 1.3 2 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 si te.

Let me know if you need more details or if I am mis sing 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 com puted: 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

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