...
首页> 外文期刊>Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology: RTP >Are the elements of the proposed ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards informed by the best available science?
【24h】

Are the elements of the proposed ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards informed by the best available science?

机译:拟议中的《臭氧国家环境空气质量标准》的要素是否已被现有最佳科学所告知?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issues National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, including ozone. Each standard has four elements: an indicator, level, averaging time, and form. Ozone levels (i.e., air concentrations) alone in scientific studies are not directly comparable to the "level" element of the NAAQS because the standard considers the level in the context of its relation to the remaining elements. Failure to appreciate this has led to misunderstandings regarding NAAQS that would be health-protective. This can be seen with controlled human ozone exposure studies, which often involved small numbers of people exercising quasi-continuously for a long duration at an intensity not common in the general population (and unlikely achievable by most sensitive individuals), under worst-case exposure profiles. In addition, epidemiology studies have used different averaging times and have had methodological limitations that may have biased results. Such considerations can make it difficult to compare ozone levels and results across studies and to appropriately apply them in a NAAQS evaluation. Relating patterns and circumstances of exposure, and exposure measurements, to all elements of the NAAQS can be challenging, but if US EPA fully undertook this, it would be evident that available evidence does not indicate that proposed lower ozone standards would be more health protective than the current one. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
机译:美国环境保护署(US EPA)针对包括臭氧在内的六种标准污染物发布了国家环境空气质量标准(NAAQS)。每个标准都有四个元素:指标,水平,平均时间和形式。科学研究中单独的臭氧水平(即空气浓度)不能直接与NAAQS的“水平”要素相提并论,因为该标准是根据其与其余要素之间的关系来考虑该水平的。不理解这一点已经导致了对NAAQS的误解,因为NAAQS具有保护健康的作用。这可以通过受控的人类臭氧暴露研究来看出,该研究经常涉及少数人在最坏情况下的暴露下以一般人群不常见的强度长时间连续进行准连续运动(大多数敏感人群不太可能实现)。个人资料。此外,流行病学研究使用了不同的平均时间,并且在方法学上存在局限性,可能会产生偏差。这些考虑因素使得很难比较整个研究中的臭氧水平和结果,并将其适当地应用于NAAQS评估中。与NAAQS的所有元素相关的暴露方式和环境以及暴露测量方法可能具有挑战性,但是,如果US EPA完全承担这一责任,则很明显,现有证据并不表明拟议的更低的臭氧标准将比当前的。 (C)2015 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号