Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 133–143 | Cite as

Does attainment status for the PM10 National Air Ambient Quality Standard change the trend in ambient levels of particulate matter?

Article

Abstract

Despite increasingly stringent and cost-demanding national, state, and local air quality regulations, adverse health effects associated with ambient exposure to air pollution persist. Accountability research, aimed at evaluating the effects of air quality regulation on health outcome, is increasingly viewed as an essential component of responsible government intervention. In this paper, we focused on assessing the impact of air quality regulations on ambient levels of air pollution. We considered two groups of counties: the first group (A) includes counties that in 1991 were designated as in attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the 1987 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and maintained their status through 2006; the second group (Ā), includes counties that in 1991 were designated as nonattainment and were subsequently redesignated as in attainment. We hypothesized that if air pollution control programs adopted to meet the NAAQS are effective in reducing air pollution levels, counties in group Ā will experience a sharper decrease in PM10 levels than counties in group A. To provide evidence to support this hypothesis, Bayesian hierarchical models were developed for estimating 1) the yearly percentage change in ambient PM10 levels for 100 counties and the entire USA during the period 1987–2007 and 2) the change in PM10 ambient levels in counties in group Ā compared with counties in group A. We found statistically significant evidence of variability across counties in trends of PM10 concentrations. We also found strong evidence that counties transitioning from nonattainment to attainment status during the period 1987–2007 experienced a sharper decline in PM10 when compared with counties that were always in attainment.

Keywords

Particulate matter Bayesian methods Hierarchical models National Ambient Air Quality Standards Accountability Environmental epidemiology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project described was supported by Award Number R01ES012054 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Award Numbers EPA R83622 and EPA RD83241701. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, of the National Institutes of Health nor of the EPA.

References

  1. American Trucking Ass’ns (2002) Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (ATA III), 283 F. 3d 355, 358 (D.C. Circ 2002)Google Scholar
  2. Bachmann J (2008) Air pollution forecasts and results-oriented tracking. Air Qual Atmos Health 1(4):203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chay K, Greenstone M (2003) The impact of air pollution on infant mortality: evidence from geographic variation in pollution shocks induced by a recession. Q J Econ 118(3):1121–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chay K, Dobkin C, Greenstone M (2003) The Clean Air Act of 1970 and adult mortality. J Risk Uncertain 27(3):279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cirera L, Rodríguez M, Giménez J, Jiménez E, Saez M, Guillén JJ, Medrano J, Martínez-Victoria MA, Ballester F, Moreno-Grau S, Navarro C (2009) Effects of public health interventions on industrial emissions and ambient air in Cartagena, Spain. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 16(2):152–161. doi: 10.1007/s11356-008-0091-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clancy L, Goodman P, Sinclair H, Dockery DW (2002) Effect of air-pollution control on death rates in Dublin, Ireland: an intervention study. Lancet 360(9341):1210–1214. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11281-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dominici F, Samet J, Zeger S (2000) Combining evidence on air pollution and daily mortality from the 20 largest US cities: a hierarchical modelling strategy. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 163(3):263–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dominici F, Peng RD, Bell ML, Pham L, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM (2006) Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. JAMA 295(10):1127–1134. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.10.1127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodman P, Rich D, Zeka A, Clancy L, Dockery D (2009) Effect of air pollution controls on black smoke and sulfur dioxide concentrations across Ireland. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 59(2):207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenstone M (2003) Estimating regulation-induced substitution: the effect of the Clean Air Act on water and ground pollution. Am Econ Rev 93(2):442–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Health Effects Institute (2003) Assessing health impact of air quality regulations: concepts and methods for accountability research. Available at: http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=153. Accessed 15 March 2009
  12. Hedley A, Wong C, Thach T, Ma S, Lam T, Anderson H (2002) Cardiorespiratory and all-cause mortality after restrictions on sulphur content of fuel in Hong Kong: an intervention study. Lancet 360(9346):1646–1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heinrich J, Hoelscher B, Frye C, Meyer I, Pitz M, Cyrys J, Wjst M, Neas L, Wichmann H (2002) Improved air quality in reunified Germany and decreases in respiratory symptoms. Epidemiology 13(4):394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janes H, Dominici F, Zeger SL (2007) Trends in air pollution and mortality: an approach to the assessment of unmeasured confounding. Epidemiology 18(4):416–423. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31806462e9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koop G, Tole L (2004) Measuring the health effects of air pollution: to what extent can we really say that people are dying from bad air? J Environ Econ Manage 47(1):30–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW (2006) Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow-up of the Harvard six cities study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 173(6):667–672. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200503-443OC CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peng RD, Chang HH, Bell ML, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM, Dominici F (2008) Coarse particulate matter air pollution and hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases among medicare patients. JAMA 299(18):2172–2179. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peters A, Breitner S, Cyrys J, Stölzel M, Pitz M, Wölke G, Heinrich J, Kreyling W, Küchenhoff H, Wichmann HE (2009) The influence of improved air quality on mortality risks in Erfurt, Germany. Res Rep Health Eff Inst (137):5–77, discussion 79–90Google Scholar
  19. Pickrell D, Schimek P (1997) Trends in personal motor vehicle ownership and use: evidence from the nationwide personal transportation survey. In: US Federal Highway Administration, Proceedings from the nationwide personal transportation survey symposium, vol 17, pp 85–127Google Scholar
  20. Plummer M (2009) JAGS version 1.0.3 manual. Available at: http://calvin.iarc.fr/ martyn/software/jags/. Accessed 20 January 2009
  21. Pope CA, Ezzati M, Dockery DW (2009) Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. N Engl J Med 360(4):376–386. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0805646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shin H, Burnett R, Stieb D, Jessiman B (2009) Measuring public health accountability of air quality management. Air Qual Atmos Health 2(1):11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tonne C, Beevers S, Armstrong B, Kelly F, Wilkinson P (2008) Air pollution and mortality benefits of the london congestion charge: spatial and socioeconomic inequalities. Occup Environ Med 65(9):620–627. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.036533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009) Regional economic accounts homepage. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm. Accessed 1 April 2009
  25. US Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Federal register air quality designations. Washington, DC, US G.P.O., Office of the Federal RegisterGoogle Scholar
  26. US Environmental Protection Agency (2006a) The Clean Air Act, section 107(d)(1)(a)(iii). Research Triangle Park, NC, US. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed 18 April 2009
  27. US Environmental Protection Agency (2006b) The Clean Air Act, section 175a. Research Triangle Park, NC, US. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed 18 April 2009
  28. US Environmental Protection Agency (2006c) The Clean Air Act, section sec. 172(a)(2). Research Triangle Park, NC, US. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed 18 April 2009
  29. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008a) Airdata database. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/. Accessed 18 April 2009
  30. US Environmental Protection Agency (2008b) National air quality: status and trends through 2007. EPA-454/R-08-006. Research Triangle Park, NC, US. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/airtrends/2008/. Accessed 18 April 2009
  31. Ward T, Palmer C, Bergauff M, Hooper K, Noonan C (2008) Results of a residential indoor pm2.5 sampling program before and after a woodstove changeout. Indoor Air 18(5):408–415. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00541.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Rava
    • 1
  • Ronald H. White
    • 2
  • Francesca Dominici
    • 3
  1. 1.Unit of Epidemiology and Medical StatisticsUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics, School of Public HealthHarvard UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations