|
|
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. A table of the cv admission studies with the methods used is attached. Several just refer to using the EPA AIRS database. This includes TEOM as well as high-volume (gravimetric) data but is probably dominated by gravimetric measurements. 2. The Secretariat, after discussion with some COMEAP members, suggest that the summary estimate is left as it is but a description of what it is based on is included. This description is based not just on how many studies were TEOM (3) and how many were gravimetric (2 definite, 9 probably predominantly gravimetric) but also how these studies weighted the overall estimate. The estimate was dominated by results from Hong Kong (TEOM) and Los Angeles (gravimetric). It would also be useful to comment on the direction of any errors. If the view is that the overall coefficient is mainly a gravimetric one, then the TEOM coefficients will be overestimates (e.g. for the Prescott study 4.8% per 10 ug/m3 TEOM will actually be per 13 ug/m3 gravimetric (using a conversion factor of 1.3) or 4.8/13x10 = 3.7% per 10 ug/m3 gravimetric). So conversion would bring the summary estimate down slightly but probably not by much. 3. A footnote has been added to the statement as follows. ‘The summary estimate is based mainly on studies using high volume samplers (gravimetric) to measure PM10. The inclusion of a few TEOM studies may mean that the summary estimate is slightly overestimated’.
Secretariat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||