A Guide to Indoor Air Quality"
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Reference Guide
Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools REFERENCE GUIDE Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Indoor Environments Division, 6609J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 (202) 564-9370 www.epa.gov/iaq American Federation of Teachers 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 879-4400 www.aft.org Association of School Business Officials 11401 North Shore Drive Reston, VA 22090 (703) 478-0405 www.asbointl.org National Education Association 1201 16th Steet, NW Washington, DC 20036-3290 (202) 833-4000 www.nea.org National Parent Teachers Association 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60611-3690 (312) 670-6782 www.pta.org American Lung Association 1740 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 315-8700 www.lungusa.org EPA 402/K-07/008 I January 2009 I www.epa.gov/iaq/schools Introduction � U nderstanding the importance of good basic measurement equipment, hiring indoor air quality (IAQ) in schools is the professional assistance, and codes and backbone of developing an effective IAQ regulations. There are numerous resources program. Poor IAQ can lead to a large available to schools through EPA and other variety of health problems and potentially organizations, many of which are listed in affect comfort, concentration, and staff/ Appendix L. Use the information in this student performance. In recognition of Guide to create the best possible learning tight school budgets, this guidance is environment for students and maintain a designed to present practical and often comfortable, healthy building for school low-cost actions you can take to identify occupants. and address existing or potential air quality Refer to A Framework for School problems. -
Tobacco Smoke, Indoor Air Pollution and Tuberculosis: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
PLoS MEDICINE Tobacco Smoke, Indoor Air Pollution and Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Hsien-Ho Lin1, Majid Ezzati2, Megan Murray1,3,4* 1 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 2 Department of Population and International Health and Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 3 Division of Social Medicine and Health Inequalities, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 4 Infectious Disease Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America Funding: This review was supported by The International Union Against ABSTRACT Tuberculosis and Lung Disease through a grant from the World Bank. The funders had no role in Background study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or Tobacco smoking, passive smoking, and indoor air pollution from biomass fuels have been preparation of the manuscript. implicated as risk factors for tuberculosis (TB) infection, disease, and death. Tobacco smoking Competing Interests: The authors and indoor air pollution are persistent or growing exposures in regions where TB poses a major have declared that no competing health risk. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the interests exist. association between these exposures and the risk of infection, disease, and death from TB. Academic Editor: Thomas E. Novotny, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, United Methods and Findings States of America We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting Citation: Lin HH, Ezzati M, Murray M effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals on how tobacco smoking, passive smoke (2007) Tobacco smoke, indoor air exposure, and indoor air pollution are associated with TB. -
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Potential health effects MCL or TT1 Common sources of contaminant in Public Health Contaminant from long-term3 exposure (mg/L)2 drinking water Goal (mg/L)2 above the MCL Nervous system or blood Added to water during sewage/ Acrylamide TT4 problems; increased risk of cancer wastewater treatment zero Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen Runoff from herbicide used on row Alachlor 0.002 problems; anemia; increased risk crops zero of cancer Erosion of natural deposits of certain 15 picocuries Alpha/photon minerals that are radioactive and per Liter Increased risk of cancer emitters may emit a form of radiation known zero (pCi/L) as alpha radiation Discharge from petroleum refineries; Increase in blood cholesterol; Antimony 0.006 fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; decrease in blood sugar 0.006 solder Skin damage or problems with Erosion of natural deposits; runoff Arsenic 0.010 circulatory systems, and may have from orchards; runoff from glass & 0 increased risk of getting cancer electronics production wastes Asbestos 7 million Increased risk of developing Decay of asbestos cement in water (fibers >10 fibers per Liter benign intestinal polyps mains; erosion of natural deposits 7 MFL micrometers) (MFL) Cardiovascular system or Runoff from herbicide used on row Atrazine 0.003 reproductive problems crops 0.003 Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge Barium 2 Increase in blood pressure from metal refineries; erosion 2 of natural deposits Anemia; decrease in blood Discharge from factories; leaching Benzene -
Racial Differences in Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke Among Children Stephen E
Children’s Health | Article Racial Differences in Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke among Children Stephen E. Wilson,1,2 Robert S. Kahn,2 Jane Khoury,2 and Bruce P. Lanphear 2 1Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, and 2Division of General and Community Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Americans had serum cotinine levels that Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality were 32–45% higher than those of whites among U.S. children. Despite African-American children’s having a lower reported exposure to (Benowitz et al. 1999, 2002; Perez-Stable tobacco compared to whites, they suffer disproportionately from tobacco-related illnesses and have et al. 1998). In a nationally representative higher levels of serum cotinine than white children. The goal of this study was to test whether sample, African-American smokers had sig- African-American children have higher levels of serum and hair cotinine, after accounting for ETS nificantly higher serum cotinine levels com- exposure and various housing characteristics. We investigated the level of cotinine in both hair pared with white smokers, even though they and serum in a sample of 222 children with asthma. Using a previously validated survey for adult reported smoking fewer cigarettes (Caraballo smokers, we assessed each child’s exposure to ETS. We collected detailed information on the pri- et al. 1998). However, the data for children mary residence, including home volume, ventilation, and overall home configuration. Despite a and ETS exposure, rather than actual tobacco lower reported ETS exposure, African-American children had higher mean levels of serum coti- use, are more limited. -
Effects of Prenatal Tobacco and Wood-Fuel Smoke Exposure on Birth Weight in Sri Lanka
healthcare Communication Effects of Prenatal Tobacco and Wood-Fuel Smoke Exposure on Birth Weight in Sri Lanka Malshani L. Pathirathna 1,2,* ID , Hansani M. Abeywickrama 2, Kayoko Sekijima 1, Mieko Sadakata 1, Naoshi Fujiwara 3, Yoshiyuki Muramatsu 1, Kuruppu M. S. Wimalasiri 4, Upali Jayawardene 5, Darshana de Silva 5 and Chandraratne M. B. Dematawewa 4 1 Department of Nursing, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata University, 2-746, Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata 951-8518, Japan; [email protected] (K.S.); [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (Y.M.) 2 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka; [email protected] 3 Department of Medical Technology, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Niigata University, 2-746, Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata 951-8518, Japan; [email protected] 4 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka; [email protected] (K.M.S.W.); [email protected] (C.M.B.D.) 5 Teaching Hospital Kurunegala, Colombo Road, Kurunegala 60000, Sri Lanka; [email protected] (U.J.); [email protected] (D.d.S.) * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +81-70-3604-4661 Academic Editor: Sampath Parthasarathy Received: 9 August 2017; Accepted: 23 September 2017; Published: 26 September 2017 Abstract: Low birth weight is a key public health problem in many developing countries, including Sri Lanka. Indoor air pollution from tobacco smoke and kitchen-fuel smoke are among the major contributors to low birth weight, factors of which there are little awareness of in Sri Lanka. -
Your Guide to Home Chemical Safety and Emergency Procedures
While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information in this booklet, the American Red Cross assumes no liability of any kind for its accuracy or completeness, or for additional or changed information subsequent to the date the information contained herein was submitted for publication. 1994 The American National Red Cross. Produced in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of these materials may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the written permission of the American Red Cross. Table of Contents Chemicals Are An Important Part of Life..............................................2 How You May Be Exposed To A Chemical............................................3 Chemical Accidents Can Be Prevented...................................................3 Children And Poisoning...........................................................................4 Home Product Precautions.......................................................................5 Family Disaster Plan.................................................................................7 Major Chemical Emergencies..................................................................9 How You May Be Notified Of A Major Chemical Emergency..............................................................................10 Shelter In Place........................................................................................11 Evacuation...............................................................................................12 -
Going Too Far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulations Simon Chapman
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 34 | Issue 4 Article 14 2008 Going Too Far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulations Simon Chapman Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Chapman, Simon (2008) "Going Too Far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulations," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 34: Iss. 4, Article 14. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol34/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Chapman: Going Too Far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulations 14. CHAPMAN - ADC 6/11/2008 6:08:59 PM GOING TOO FAR? EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF SMOKING REGULATIONS Simon Chapman† I. RISKS ARISE FROM CHRONIC EXPOSURE..............................1609 II. IS TOBACCO SMOKE ANY MORE TOXIC THAN SMOKE FROM OTHER SOURCES OF BURNT BIOMASS?................................1612 III. WHAT PROBLEMS WOULD ARISE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IF AN ABSOLUTE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY WAS ADOPTED FOR SECONDHAND SMOKE? .................................1614 IV. PSYCHOGENIC EXPLANATIONS OF CLAIMED HARMS FROM LOW-LEVEL SHS EXPOSURES...............................................1617 It is customary in my home country of Australia at the opening of conferences to invite representatives -
National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007
National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable process chlorine-free paper with 100% post-consumer fiber using vegetable-oil-based ink. National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Assessment Division Research Triangle Park, North Carolina EPA-454/R-08-006 November 2008 Table of Contents Highlights ... 1 Air Pollution ... 4 Six Common Pollutants ... 10 Ground-Level Ozone ... 14 Particle Pollution ... 19 Lead ... 26 Nitrogen Dioxide ... 27 Carbon Monoxide ... 27 Sulfur Dioxide ... 27 Toxic Air Pollutants ... 28 Atmospheric Deposition ... 32 Visibility in Scenic Areas ... 34 Climate Change and Air Quality ... 36 International Transport of Air Pollution ... 38 Terminology ... 40 Web Sites ... 41 HIGHLIGHTS This summary report highlights EPA’s most recent ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Ground- evaluation of the status and trends in our nation’s air level ozone and particle pollution still present quality. challenges in many areas of the country. LEVELS OF SIX COMMON POLLUTANTS • Though PM2.5 concentrations were higher in 2007 CONTINUE TO DECLINE than in 2006, partly due to weather conditions, annual PM2.5 concentrations were nine percent • Cleaner cars, industries, and consumer products lower in 2007 than in 2001. have contributed to cleaner air for much of the U.S. • 8-hour ozone concentrations were fi ve percent • Since 1990, nationwide air quality for six air lower in 2007 than in 2001. Ozone levels did not pollutants for which there are national standards improve in much of the East until 2002, after has improved signifi cantly. -
Effectiveness of Virginia's Water Resource Planning and Management
Commonwealth of Virginia House Document 8 (2017) October 2016 Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia Effectiveness of Virginia’s Water Resource Planning and Management 2016 JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chair Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr. Vice-Chair Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate David B. Albo Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Senator Emmett W. Hanger, Jr. Senator Janet D. Howell Delegate S. Chris Jones Delegate R. Steven Landes Delegate James P. Massie III Senator Ryan T. McDougle Delegate John M. O’Bannon III Delegate Kenneth R. Plum Senator Frank M. Ruff, Jr. Delegate Lionell Spruill, Sr. Martha S. Mavredes, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Hal E. Greer JLARC staff for this report Justin Brown, Senior Associate Director Jamie Bitz, Project Leader Susan Bond Joe McMahon Christine Wolfe Information graphics: Nathan Skreslet JLARC Report 486 ©2016 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission http://jlarc.virginia.gov February 8, 2017 The Honorable Robert D. Orrock Sr., Chair Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission General Assembly Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Delegate Orrock: In 2015, the General Assembly directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to study water resource planning and management in Virginia (HJR 623 and SJR 272). As part of this study, the report, Effectiveness of Virginia’s Water Resource Planning and Management, was briefed to the Commission and authorized for printing on October 11, 2016. On behalf of Commission staff, I would like to express appreciation for the cooperation and assistance of the staff of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Water Resource Research Center at Virginia Tech. -
Reference: Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution
PUBLICATION 8084 FWQP REFERENCE SHEET 11.2 Reference: Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution THOMAS HARTER is UC Cooperative Extension Hydrogeology Specialist, University of California, Davis, and Kearney Agricultural Center. roundwater quality comprises the physical, chemical, and biological qualities of UNIVERSITY OF G ground water. Temperature, turbidity, color, taste, and odor make up the list of physi- CALIFORNIA cal water quality parameters. Since most ground water is colorless, odorless, and Division of Agriculture without specific taste, we are typically most concerned with its chemical and biologi- and Natural Resources cal qualities. Although spring water or groundwater products are often sold as “pure,” http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu their water quality is different from that of pure water. In partnership with Naturally, ground water contains mineral ions. These ions slowly dissolve from soil particles, sediments, and rocks as the water travels along mineral surfaces in the pores or fractures of the unsaturated zone and the aquifer. They are referred to as dis- solved solids. Some dissolved solids may have originated in the precipitation water or river water that recharges the aquifer. A list of the dissolved solids in any water is long, but it can be divided into three groups: major constituents, minor constituents, and trace elements (Table 1). The http://www.nrcs.usda.gov total mass of dissolved constituents is referred to as the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration. In water, all of the dissolved solids are either positively charged ions Farm Water (cations) or negatively charged ions (anions). The total negative charge of the anions always equals the total positive charge of the cations. -
A Public Health Legal Guide to Safe Drinking Water
A Public Health Legal Guide to Safe Drinking Water Prepared by Alisha Duggal, Shannon Frede, and Taylor Kasky, student attorneys in the Public Health Law Clinic at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, under the supervision of Professors Kathleen Hoke and William Piermattei. Generous funding provided by the Partnership for Public Health Law, comprised of the American Public Health Association, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of County & City Health Officials, and the National Association of Local Boards of Health August 2015 THE PROBLEM: DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION Clean drinking water is essential to public health. Contaminated water is a grave health risk and, despite great progress over the past 40 years, continues to threaten U.S. communities’ health and quality of life. Our water resources still lack basic protections, making them vulnerable to pollution from fracking, farm runoff, industrial discharges and neglected water infrastructure. In the U.S., treatment and distribution of safe drinking water has all but eliminated diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery and hepatitis A that continue to plague many parts of the world. However, despite these successes, an estimated 19.5 million Americans fall ill each year from drinking water contaminated with parasites, bacteria or viruses. In recent years, 40 percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once.1 Those violations ranged from failing to maintain proper paperwork to allowing carcinogens into tap water. Approximately 23 million people received drinking water from municipal systems that violated at least one health-based standard.2 In some cases, these violations can cause sickness quickly; in others, pollutants such as inorganic toxins and heavy metals can accumulate in the body for years or decades before contributing to serious health problems. -
Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention
This guidance is not a regulatory document and should be considered only informational and supplementary to the MPCA permits (such as the construction storm water general permit or MS4 permit) and local regulations. CHAPTER 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 7.00 POLLUTION PREVENTION..............................................................................................7.00-1 7.01 Nonstructural Practices: PLAN DEVELOPMENT.....................................................7.01-1 7.02 Nonstructural Practices: EMPLOYEE TRAINING....................................................7.02-1 7.03 Nonstructural Practices: INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................7.03-1 7.04 Nonstructural Practices: MONITORING AND EVALUATION ...............................7.04-1 7.20 GENERAL PRACTICES.....................................................................................................7.20-1 7.22 General Practices: SPILL PLANS...............................................................................7.22-1 7.23 General Practices: LITTER CONTROL .....................................................................7.23-1 7.24 General Practices: LAWN MANAGEMENT.............................................................7.24-1 7.25 General Practices: DUST CONTROL ........................................................................7.25-1 7.26 General Practices: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL...................................7.26-1 7.27 General Practices: STREET SWEEPING...................................................................7.27-1