AG 2007 10 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on hospitalizations (from 2006 and so not included in the CD) continues to show no evidence of ozone effects on cardiovascular hospitalizations. I therefore stand by my minority view that the mortality endpoints should not have been included in the risk assessment. 5. Inconsistencies. There are a few inconsistencies. For example, "mortality is likely associated [my underline] with 03 exposures" vs. " osu sib1X [my underline] increased mortality" (p.6-47 last sentence mid-paragraph vs. top and bottom of page). 6. Future research. It is appreciated that recommendations for future research are not a focus of the Staff Paper. Nevertheless, since they are included here, a few comments are appropriate. (i) The very limited amount of human experimental data at concentrations lower than 80 ppb is astounding, especially in light of the importance of these data in the exposure estimates, the risk assessment and the recommendations. More prominence should be given to a recommendation to increase the number of subjects in such experiments, and to assess the reproducibility within individuals of the findings, much as has been done at concentrations of 0.08 ppm and above. (ii) Regarding exposure work (recommendation #7, p.6-89), I would recommend adding the elderly with medical conditions as a group of great interest. 7. Figures 6-1 to 6-6. I applaud the changes to figures 6-1 to 6-6 that includes comparison to current levels, even though this results in compression of some of the body of the plots by expanding the y-axis. Unfortunately, the figures are attempting to display information on too many issues. Minor: 1. Appendix, Table 6 (p.6A-1) needs to be identified as such. 2. p.6-10, mid para. The wording suggests that lung function decrements following exposure to ozone are related to baseline level of lung function, whereas what is specifically described in the section referenced is that effects on bronchial resuonsiveness are related to baseline level. The experimental evidence that asthmatics have a greater lung function response to ozone than non- asthmatics remains very limited. 3. p.6-10. reference to CD p.8-80 is not the correct page. 4. p. 6-37, footnote. The correct Staff Paper tables are 5-16 and 5-17, not 5-10 and 5-I1. 5. p.6-56. There is no evidence for "reduced lung function growth in children," just decrements in.lung function that likely have nothing to do with growth of either airways or lung parenchyma. 6. p.6-77. The continued reference to lung permeability effects as the most plausible explanation for cardiovascular effects of ozone is not recommended, especially when other effects of inflammation seem more credible. 7. p.6-79. I would add "estimated to line 10 when referring to reduction in mortality. 8. p.6-82. Reference should be to Appendix 6A not 6B in first paragraph. ~.._~~ C-31