The Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center
Founded 1990, Incorporated 1991
PUBLICATIONS

Back to Home Page

A full-text version of any of the mentioned reports may be obtained by contacting .

                2001-2005 Strategic Research Plan, Adobe Acrobat Document PDF (Click here to get Adobe Reader)

                Publications
                       Center Publications
                       Peer-reviewed Publications
                       Symposia
                       Annual Reports
                       Newsletters
                       Others

                Extended Abstracts Currently Available

What's New | About the Center | Research Mission | Ongoing Research |
 Contact Information  |Other Links | Site Map

Publications

           Personal Exposures to Toxic Air Pollutants: Vol. 2
            -    Feasibility Study: Results of the Laboratory Evaluation
            -    Field Pilot Exposure Study: Personal Dosimeter Utilization Study
            -    Modification of the 3500 OVM Passive Dosimeter
               Drs. T.H. Stock and M.T. Morandi

Back to Top  

Back to Top

          Personal Exposure/Health Effects of Air Toxics -- April, 1997 (Introduction Summary)
          Workshop Summary

          Air Toxic: Biomarkers in Environmental Applications - April, 1995
          Symposium Sponsored by the Leland Center
          (Published by Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 104, Supplement 5, 10/96)

          Asthma as an Air Toxics End Point -- February, 1994
          Symposium Sponsored by the Leland Center
          (Published by Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 103, Supplement 6, 9/95)

         Back to Top

Back to Top

Extended Abstracts Currently Available

Back to Top

 

Abstract
 Chamber Evaluation of An Organic Vapor
(T. H. Stock, M. T. Morandi, M. Afshar; University of Texas School of Public Health)

The performance of the 3520 organic vapor monitor was evaluated using combined controlled test atmospheres of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, p-dichlorobenzene, methylene chloride, styrene, tetrachloroethylene, and toluene.  concentrations of 10, 20, and 200 micrograms/m3 at 20 and 40oC and 12, 50, and 90% relative humidities were generated.  The results of this on-going evaluation indicate that the performance of the 3520 OVM is compound-specific and depends on concentration, temperature and humidity.  Care should be taken to monitor these conditions when doing indoor monitoring of compounds such as p-dichlorobenzene, styrene, 1,3-butadiene and methylene chloride in particular.

Back to Top

Abstract
Field Comparisons Of Canisters
(M.T. Morandi, T.H. Stock, C.W. Chung, Y. Kim, M. Afshar; University of TX School of Public Health)

Limited applications of OVMs for monitoring VOCs in indoor, personal and community air have not included comparisons with canister sampling, the more generally accepted sampling approach at low-ppb concentrations.  A field comparison of the performance of the 3M 3520 OVM with canister and continuous GC sampling for 1,3-butadiene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, chloroprene, methylene chloride, styrene, and toluene with 24-hour duration was performed at two air quality monitoring stations in Houston, Texas.  the results of the comparison indicate that, while background variability of methylene chloride, chloroform, benzene, toluene, styrene and tetrachloroethylene in the OVM impacts the currently achievable 24-hour detection limits, ambient measurements were in general agreement with the comparison methods, given the observed variability among the comparison methods themselves.

Back to Top

Abstract
Modified Diffusion Sampler For Measuring
(T. H. Stock, M. T. Morandi, M. Afshar; University of Texas School of Public Health)

A simple modification of a commercially-available diffusion air sampler was field evaluated in two nonoccupational environments by direct side-by-side comparison sampling with the original unmodified samplers over 24-hour periods.  The intent of the modification was to double the compound-specific sampling rates of the sampler in order to improve its detection limits when employed for monitoring low concentrations of VOCs in community environments.  Results of this preliminary evaluation suggest that the expected doubling of the sampling rates is achieved by shortening the diffusion path, but that the additional required modification of the windscreen may also result in a slight increase of effective sampling rates.

Back to Top

Personal Exposure/Health Effects of Air Toxics (Introduction)
Workshop Sponsored by The Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center
April 16-17, 1997, Reston, Virginia

Introduction
On April 16 and 17, 1997, the National Urban Air Toxics Research Center (NUATRC) held a Workshop in Reston, VA with the purpose of identifying key research studies that are needed to answer important risk assessment questions.  The Workshop also focused on the availability of suitable research tools for this work in the area, as nearly 200 individual air toxics as defined in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.  The U.S. EPA is charged with numerous responsibilities to carry out legal mandates under the Act including:  the need to prioritize those air toxics presenting the greatest risk to public health; an assessment of the health effects of mobile source toxics, the development of an area source control strategy, and the need to reassess air toxics public health risks within 10 years of the passage of Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 including the steps necessary to manage those risks.  The NUATRC was established in the law to carry out a sound research program to help assess these needs and develop air toxics health research information that would contribute to improved risk assessment.  The health research focus of the NUATRC has been on non-cancer health effects of the air toxics.

The specific goals of the Workshop were to bring together scientists of divergent backgrounds to discuss key questions regarding air toxics to arrive at a clear definition of what is known, what are the highest priority areas to pursue and what tools could be used or developed to achieve these goals.  The structure of the Workshop included presentations by leading experts to provide a strong foundation for discussing key questions, and three sets of breakout sessions followed by a common Plenary session to arrive at a consensus response to the questions.  The following are brief abstracts of the presentations and the Workshop questions with consensus responses.

Abstracts

Back to Top