We linked risk estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to racial and socioeconomic characteristics of census tracts in Maryland (2000 Census) to evaluate disparities in estimated cancer risk from exposure to air toxics by emission source category. In Maryland, the average estimated cancer risk across census tracts was highest from on-road sources (50% of total risk from nonbackground sources), followed by nonroad (25%), area (23%), and major sources (< 1%). Census tracts in the highest quartile defined by the fraction of African-American residents were three times more likely to be high risk (> 90th percentile of risk) than those in the lowest quartile (95% confidence interval, 2.0–5.0). Conversely, risk decreased as the proportion of whites increased (p < 0.001). Census tracts in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic position, as measured by various indicators, were 10–100 times more likely to be high risk than those in the highest quartile. We observed substantial risk disparities for on-road, area, and nonroad sources by socioeconomic measure and on-road and area sources by race. There was considerably less evidence of risk disparities from major source emissions. We found a statistically significant interaction between race and income, suggesting a stronger relationship between race and risk at lower incomes. This research demonstrates the utility of NATA for assessing regional environmental justice, identifies an environmental justice concern in Maryland, and suggests that on-road sources may be appropriate targets for policies intended to reduce the disproportionate environmental health burden among economically disadvantaged and minority populations.

Evaluation of the public health impact of air quality regulations, referred to as accountability research, is increasingly viewed as a necessary component of responsible governmental policy interventions. The authors present an example of accountability assessment based on evaluating change in the short-term effect of airborne particles over a period of increasingly stringent regulation that might have changed the chemical composition and toxicity of these particles. They used updated data and methods of the National Morbidity Mortality Air Pollution Study to estimate national average relative rates of the effects of particulate matter

Low-dose extrapolation model selection for evaluating the health effects of environmental pollutants is a key component of the risk assessment process. At a workshop held in Baltimore, Maryland, on 23–24 April 2007, sponsored by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, a multidisciplinary group of experts reviewed the state of the science regarding low-dose extrapolation modeling and its application in environmental health risk assessments. Participants identified discussion topics based on a literature review, which included examples for which human responses to ambient exposures have been extensively characterized for cancer and/or noncancer outcomes. Topics included the need for formalized approaches and criteria to assess the evidence for mode of action (MOA), the use of human versus animal data, the use of MOA information in biologically based models, and the implications of interindividual variability, background disease processes, and background exposures in threshold versus nonthreshold model choice. Participants recommended approaches that differ from current practice for extrapolating high-dose animal data to low-dose human exposures, including categorical approaches for integrating information on MOA, statistical approaches such as model averaging, and inference-based models that explicitly consider uncertainty and interindividual variability.

Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 75 ppb, expressed as the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average over a 24-hr period. Based on recent monitoring data, U.S. ozone levels still exceed this standard in numerous locations, resulting in avoidable adverse health consequences.Objectives: We sought to quantify the potential human health benefits from achieving the current primary NAAQS standard of 75 ppb and two alternative standard levels, 70 and 60 ppb, which represent the range recommended by the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).Methods: We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration–response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature.Results: We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70–60 ppb) had been met.Conclusions: Attaining a more stringent primary ozone standard would significantly reduce ozone-related premature mortality and morbidity.

No abstract