ambient acetaldehyde in the district
TRANSCRIPT
Ambient Acetaldehyde in the District f C l bi d P t ti l H lth Ri kof Columbia and Potential Health Risk
Abdullahi A. Asimalowo1, Kofi Asante‐Duah2, Rama Seshu Tangirala1, , g1Monitoring and Assessment Branch, Air Quality Division, 2Environmental Protection
Administration, District Department of the Environment, Washington, DC
National Air Toxics Monitoring and Data Analysis WorkshopApril 4‐7, 2011
US EPA Region 6, Dallas, TX
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge the assistance from the Monitoring andassistance from the Monitoring and Assessment Branch staff: Robert Day, Khin Sann Thaung Richard Tun Jessica DanielsSann Thaung, Richard Tun, Jessica Daniels, Winston Thaung, and others.
DisclaimerDisclaimer
This presentation and the opinions therein are those of the authors and do not necessarilythose of the authors and do not necessarily represent or express the views of the District Department of the Environment or theDepartment of the Environment or the Government of the District of Columbia
Obj iObjectives
• Evaluate the ambient acetaldehyde ( ) l l i h i i f l bi(CH3CHO) levels in the District of Columbia.– Data period 2004‐2009
• Assess potential human health related risk.
O iOverview
• Carbonyls are monitored in the District of Columbia (District) as part of the national air toxics trends stations (NATTS) monitoring networktoxics trends stations (NATTS) monitoring network.
• NATA 2005 ranked aldehydes as high health risk compounds among ambient air toxics.p g
• Acetaldehyde (CH3CHO) in the carbonyls group was selected for the preliminary study because of hi h t f d t ta high percent of data capture.
O iOverview…
Physical Properties
• Chemical formula: CH3CHO3
• Molecular weight: 44.06g/mol
• Colorless liquid; miscible with water• Colorless liquid; miscible with water
• Odor is pungent and suffocating0• Vapor pressure is 740 mmHg at 200C
O iOverview…
Potential Health Concerns
• Cancer Risk– Classified as Group B: probable human carcinogen 1,3,5g
– Limited information available1,3
– High incidence of nasal tumors in rats and g c de ce o asa u o s a s a dlaryngeal tumors in hamsters have been noted1,3
O iOverview…
Potential Health Concerns
• Acute Exposurep– Irritation of eyes, skin, and respiratory tract;
– Erythema, coughing, pulmonary edema, andErythema, coughing, pulmonary edema, and necrosis (at high exposure);
– Depressed respiratory rate and elevated blood ep essed esp a o y a e a d e e a ed b oodpressure in experimental animals.
» US DOHHS (1993); US EPA (1987)
OverviewOverview…
P i l H l h CPotential Health Concerns• Chronic (non‐cancer)
– Symptoms similar to alcoholism.
– Reference concentration (RfC) is 0.009 mg/m3.
– ‘At exposures increasingly greater than the RfC, the potential for adverse health effects increases.’
US EPA (1999)
OverviewOverview…
Potential Health ConcernsPotential Health Concerns• Reproductive/Developmental Effects
– Animal studies indicate potential developmental– Animal studies indicate potential developmental effects.
– Shown to cross placenta to fetus in animals ( )(1,4).
– Rats injected with CH3CHO showed skeletal malfunction, lower birth weight, and highermalfunction, lower birth weight, and higher postnatal mortality.
– No information available for humans.EPA, 1987; IARC, 1985
Overview…
Potential SourcesPotential Sources• Vehicular exhaust fumes 1,2,3• Photochemical degradation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 1 2 3compounds (VOCs) 1,2,3
• Product of incomplete combustion in fire places 1,2,3• Higher plant respirations 4,6,,7g p p• Coffee roasting 1,2,3• Tobacco burning 1,2,3• Coal refining 1,2,3• Coal refining 1,2,3• Waste processing 1,2,3
Overview…Acetaldehyde Emissions in the District
• 49.8 tons per year (Data source: 2005 NATA Inventories)
Point Sources0.1%
Area Sources8.7%
Off‐Road Mobile
Rail_Marine_Airports0.6%
Point SourcesInventories)• Vehicular (on‐road and off‐
road) exhaust is the primary source
On‐Road Mobile55.4%
Mobile35.2%
Point Sources
Area Sources
On‐Road Mobile
Off‐Road Mobile
Rail_Marine_Airportssource
Air Toxics Sampling and Analysis MethodAir Toxics Sampling and Analysis Method
Source: Dennis K. MikelEPA–OAQPS‐AQAD
McMillan Reservoir Station
McMillan Reservoir Air Monitoring Station
Sampling and Analysis MethodSampling and Analysis Method
S l ll t d d l d i EPA’Samples are collected and analyzed using EPA’s Compendium Method TO‐11A (Compendium of Methods for Determination of Toxic Organic gCompounds in Ambient Air). • Samples are collected using adsorbent cartridge 2,4‐dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) on silica.
• 24‐hour sampling once every six days.Di i ’ l Phil d l hi AMS• District’s samples are sent to Philadelphia AMS laboratory for analysis.
Sampling Instrument
S li d A l i M h dSampling and Analysis Method…
• EPA Compendium Method TO‐11A– Analyzed using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).
– Data posted on the EPA’s data repository, Air li ( )Quality Systems (AQS).
– Data downloaded from AQS used in this study.
Data AnalysisData Analysis
• Data from 2004 to 2009 from the District’s• Data from 2004 to 2009 from the District s NATTS site analyzed.
• Number of yearly sampling events ranged b 9 d 61 i di i h 98%between 59 and 61, indicating more than 98% data capture.
• Except 2009, all years had at least 70% of theExcept 2009, all years had at least 70% of the samples above the method detection limit (MDL‐0.6 ppbC).
• Overall about 20% of the data were below• Overall, about 20% of the data were below the MDL.
Ambient Acetaldehyde in the District of Columbia - 2004-2009(µg/m3)
3.5
4.0
(µg/m3)
2.5
3.0
µg/m
3)
2.0
5
cent
ratio
n (µ
1.0
1.5
Con
c
0.0
0.5
9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009 11/18/2010Sample Date
9
Acetaldehyde Concentrations at Select Locations in the Northeast
7
8
9
Allegheny-PABaltimore-MDBronx-NYDC
5
6
n (p
pbC
)
FairfaxNew Castle-DE
3
4
once
ntra
tion
0
1
2Co
0
1/4/
2004
4/4/
2004
7/4/
2004
10/4
/200
4
1/4/
2005
4/4/
2005
7/4/
2005
10/4
/200
5
1/4/
2006
4/4/
2006
7/4/
2006
10/4
/200
6
1/4/
2007
4/4/
2007
7/4/
2007
10/4
/200
7
1/4/
2008
4/4/
2008
7/4/
2008
10/4
/200
8
1/4/
2009
4/4/
2009
7/4/
2009
10/4
/200
9
Sample Date
Acetaldehyde Concentrations in the District of Columbia - 2004-2009
4
4.5
2006
2007
3
3.5
C)
2008
2004
2005
2009
2
2.5
ratio
n (p
pbC 2009
1
1.5
Con
cent
r
0
0.5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 611 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61Sampling Event (Jan-Dec)
Acetaldehyde Levels in the District of ColumbiaSeasonal Variation 2004‐2009
2.50
Seasonal Variation 2004 2009
2004
2005
2006
1 50
2.00
ppbC
)
2006
2007
2008
2009
1.00
1.50
centration
s (p
0.50
Conc
0.00
Spring Summer Fall WinterSpring Summer Fall Winter
Results and DiscussionResults and Discussion
• Annual Average concentrations:• Annual Average concentrations:
– Lowest in 2004 • Mean: 0.72 µg/m3 and σ=0.35
–Highest in 2006 • Mean: 1.12 µg/m3 and σ=0.80
• No seasonality observed during the studyNo seasonality observed during the study period.
Results and Discussion: Potential Health Risk
Cancer risk• Approximately 2 in a million.Hazard Quotient (HQ)• HQ for the six‐year period estimated at 0.1. • HQ is well below the risk threshold 1.
ConclusionsConclusions
• No seasonal variation observed• No seasonal variation observed.
• 2 in a million cancer risk.
• HQ is low.
• Two years ‐ 2006 and 2007, indicated slightly y g yhigher ambient levels than the other years.
Further Analysis and dRecommendations
• The entire carbonyl family needs to be reviewed to determine population exposure concentrations.
S i d h l l i• Source apportionment study may help explain contributions from various sources.
• Combinin o tdoor ith indoor on entrations ma• Combining outdoor with indoor concentrations may better explain inhalation exposure.
• 2 in a million cancer risk calls for further review by• 2 in a million cancer risk calls for further review by accounting for other exposure sources.
ReferencesReferences1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Assessment Document for Acetaldehyde. EPA/600/8‐86‐
015A. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, , ,Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1987.
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS, online database). National Toxicology Information Program, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD. 1993.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Acetaldehyde. l f l ff f h d l hNational Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
1999.4. Millet, D. B., Guenther, A., Siegel, D. A., Nelson, N. B., Singh, H. B., de Gouw, J. A., Warneke, C., Williams, J.,
Eerdekens, G., Sinha, V., Karl, T., Flocke, F., Apel, E., Riemer, D. D., Palmer, P. I., and Barkley, M.: Global atmospheric budget of acetaldehyde: 3‐D model analysis and constraints from in‐situ and satellite observations Atmos Chem Phys 10 3405‐3425 doi:10 5194/acp‐10‐3405‐2010 2010observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 3405 3425, doi:10.5194/acp 10 3405 2010, 2010.
5. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Allyl Compounds, Aldehydes, Epoxides and Peroxides. Volume 36. World Health Organization, Lyon. 1985.
6. Jürgen Kreuzwieser, Cristian Cojocariu, Vera Jüssen and Heinz Rennenberg: Elevated Atmospheric CO2Causes Seasonal Changes in Carbonyl Emissions from Quercus ilex. New Phytologist Vol. 154, No. 2 (May, g y Q y g , ( y,2002), pp. 327‐333
7. COJOCARIU, C., ESCHER, P., HÄBERLE, K.‐H., MATYSSEK, R., RENNENBERG, H. and KREUZWIESER, J. (2005), The effect of ozone on the emission of carbonyls from leaves of adult Fagus sylvatica. Plant, Cell & Environment, 28: 603–611. doi: 10.1111/j.1365‐3040.2005.01305.x