Greenversations

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

Lately, John Godleski has spent a lot of time underground.

When I visited Harvard in December though, he surfaced for a chat with me about his unique research.

Along with colleagues at the Harvard Particulate Matter Research Center, Godleski has set up air pollution monitoring equipment inside a busy tunnel in the Northeast.

Part of the Toxicological Evaluation of Realistic Emission Source Aerosol, his study aims to assess differences between the health effects of exposure to particles directly from car exhaust (primary), and particles from exhaust that have transformed in the atmosphere (secondary).

The underlying hypothesis of the project is that breathing in particles that come directly from a vehicle might induce different health effects than breathing in particles that have spent time in the atmosphere, where they come into contact with sunlight.

To test the hypothesis, Godleski and his colleagues developed a photochemical aging chamber that essentially mimics real-world atmospheric conditions with simulated sunlight.

Exhaust from cars is fed into the chamber first with the artificial sun-lights switched to “off” and to then to “on.” This produces two types of output: exhaust with just primary particles (lights off), and exhaust with both primary and secondary particles (lights on).

Project scientists then conduct lab studies to look for differences in resulting health outcomes.

Preliminary findings suggest that the “lights on” particles, representing particles that have come into contact with sunlight, cause more lung inflammation and more potentially harmful oxidative activity in the body.

Since secondary particles in the air are ubiquitous, understanding their health impacts is extremely important.

“Though some people are involved in what directly comes out of a vehicle or a power plant, everybody is exposed to what happens to those particles once they are in the air,” Godleski explained.

Collection of exhaust particles directly from the tunnel makes this study especially representative of real-world particle exposure.

“If we go to a tunnel,” he continued, “we can get a mixture of vehicle output—we can get cars, we can get trucks, and we can get something very representative of what people ultimately may breathe. It gives us access to a mixed vehicle effluent in a way that nothing else does.”

This research is a critical step toward understanding the health effects of real-world airborne particle exposure. We will continue to report findings as Godleski continues to dig for answers.

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research. Her OnAir posts are a regular “Science Wednesday” feature.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

How great it would be to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone! (…or would it be Spin now?) Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show aspired to this position in their famous song of 1972, written by Shel Silverstein. Well, getting an article about you in Rolling Stone is almost as good. So I was thrilled to read the current issue of Rolling Stone (Feb. 4, 2010) which has an article on our “Eco-Warrior” administrator, Lisa Jackson. Reporter Tim Dickinson says, “Taken together, Jackson’s efforts represent a sweeping attempt to revitalize an agency…The goal, as she (Administrator Jackson) sees it, is to once again base environmental regulations on science and the law…”

Sustainability is often described as a three-legged stool, with one leg each for the environment, the economy, and society. I think that the legs are not even, and the major support comes from the environment. Without the natural capital provided by our environment, we’d have no society or economy. Convincing evidence for the importance of the natural environment came from the Biosphere 2 project.

In the early 1990’s, a huge structure was built in the Arizona desert. Over 3 enclosed acres housed a variety of ecosystems with manmade recycling systems designed to imitate earth’s natural systems. The project, however, could not independently sustain humans or the other organisms inside. There were problems with oxygen and food, and outside electricity had to be used. Because of Biosphere 2, we learned that people don’t have the ability to design a self-sustaining ecosystem for human life. If we lose our natural ecosystem by failing in environmental protection, in the words of Dr. Gro Brundlant, chair of the first World Commission on Environment and Development, there will be no sanctuary. EPA’s mission, protecting the environment and human health, is key to our sustainability and survivability.

At EPA we rely on science and our intelligent leaders like Lisa Jackson to carry out this mission. Rolling Stone has duly recognized her, and I am very proud. Maybe next year she will make the cover!

About the Author: EPA Environmental scientist Dr. Barbara Karn focuses on “green” nanotechnologies, including using green chemistry, green engineering and environmentally benign manufacturing to make new nanomaterials and products for preventing pollution.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

When I was a little girl, I wanted to be a scientist. At first, the only scientist I knew of was Albert Einstein, but I had no aspirations of growing up looking like him. Then I discovered a “Space Cadet” television character who was a physicist—and a woman. It was cool. Finally a role model I could follow!

What I liked about science was doing experiments and learning things that nobody else knew. I thought it would be great to learn science and help the planet at the same time.
Now I have the privilege of working for EPA where our mission—to protect the environment and human health—is based on scientific knowledge. The scientific knowledge that I use in promoting EPA’s mission is nanotechnology.

According to the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a coalition of U.S. government agencies that fund or use nanotechnology research, nanotechnology encompasses materials with dimensions between one and 100 nanometers (no small molecules need apply) and have unique properties that enable novel applications. (My colleague Nora Savage did a great job explaining nanotechnology on a previous Science Wednesday post.

Two scientists received the 2007 Nobel Prize in physics for making a nano-sized discovery: giant magnetoresistance, or GMR. GMR is a property some metals have at the nanoscale, and it was used to develop smaller computer hard drives with more storage than before. Some of these are now found in our cell phones and MP3 players.

GMR is just one example of the many types of nanomaterials that have the potential to lead to exciting new products. But could some nanomaterials also be harmful to the environment?
That’s where I come in. I work on a grant program I developed supporting research focused on nanotechnology and the environment. I may not be a Space Cadet, but I am a scientist who helps the world. It’s kind of like a dream come true.

About the Author: EPA Environmental scientist Dr. Barbara Karn focuses on “green” nanotechnologies, including using green chemistry, green engineering and environmentally benign manufacturing to make new nanomaterials and products for preventing pollution. Look for more about her work and her dream job in future Science Wednesday posts.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

On my second day of work, I was asked to find a Stephen Colbert video.

I found it on the Comedy Central web site

The subject of Colbert’s mockery is actually one of the most significant air studies recently published. It presents evidence, for the first time, that breathing cleaner air actually makes people live longer.

A 2009 study by Arden Pope, Majid Ezzati, and Doug Dockery published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that cleaner air in the U.S. has increased life expectancy by an average of 5 months.

Over the past few decades, EPA has regulated air pollution because various scientific studies have determined that it is harmful to human health. As particles emitted into the air have been gradually reduced, pollutant levels in air have significantly decreased.

But despite the obviously cleaner air, it has been extremely difficult to confirm the resulting health improvements. Couldn’t better health also be attributed to decreased cigarette smoking, better eating habits and health care, or a variety of other changes?

Pope, Ezzati, and Dockery—an EPA PM Research Center grantee—matched air monitoring data with life expectancy data spanning three decades and 51 cities across the US. Using advanced statistical models, they accounted for any other factors that might also affect life span (like cigarette smoking) in order to see the effects of air quality alone.

Their results showed that an increase in life expectancy of 5 months was directly attributable to an average reduction of 6 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particle air pollution between 1980 and 2000.

The implication of the study—that EPA air regulations have directly and substantially lengthened human lives—is a triumph for both regulatory agencies and researchers world wide because it shows that air research and policy really do work.

Stephen Colbert isn’t the only one to recognize the importance of this finding. News of the study was reported in the Washington Post,  New York Times, and in an entire segment on NBC Nightly News.

I spoke to Doug Dockery, investigator of the study and scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, to get his take on the impact of this finding.

“There is an important positive message here,” he said.

“Efforts to reduce particulate air pollution concentrations in the United States over the past 20 years have led to substantial and measurable improvements in life expectancy.”

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research, part of the Office of Research and Development.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

I received a great holiday gift on December 24 when the U.S. Senate confirmed me as the Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). I am thrilled that President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson have trusted me with this incredible opportunity.

I take great pride in joining EPA’s leadership team, and am eager to get started with the important work ORD does in making a real difference for the American people.

Coming to EPA is kind of a homecoming for me. Over twenty years ago I joined the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances as chief of the industrial chemistry branch, and I’ve been fortunate to keep in touch with my many EPA friends and extraordinary colleagues over the years.

The Office of Research and Development is a cornerstone of this Agency, seen in the fact that both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have emphasized cutting-edge, independent scientific analysis as critical to the work of EPA. We here at ORD have a chance to not only explore innovative solutions to protect our health and the environment, but to reassure the American people that nothing will compromise our commitment to openness and scientific integrity.

As we look toward the 40th anniversary of EPA’s founding, the issues we face are more complex and subtle than they were at our founding—and the need for the best science is greater than ever.

Those who know me well know that I consider myself a “strategic optimist.” That means I bring to the table an ambitious vision, and a firm understanding that we can only get there if we take the correct actions. Identifying those actions will require the best science and technology that ORD has to offer. That is why—like Administrator Jackson—my highest priorities for ORD are the integrity, independence, and transparency of the scientific processes, and the application of this science to the programs throughout EPA.

About the Author: Prior to his confirmation as the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, Paul T. Anastas was the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment at Yale University, where he also served as the director of the Center for Green Chemistry & Green Engineering. He is widely known as “the Father of Green Chemistry.” Anastas earned his B.S. from the University of Massachusetts at Boston and his M.A. and Ph.D. in chemistry from Brandeis University.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

Constaninos Sioutas, Ph.D. typically conducts air pollution research on polluted highway roadsides or near running diesel engines. But a recent project lured him to a much more refined location— face to face with Leonardo da Vinci’s, The Last Supper.

Sioutas is a co-director of the Southern California Particle Center, a consortium of universities researching air pollution. The Center is funded by a multimillion-dollar EPA grant. Sioutas’ current research focuses on exposure to mobile air pollution sources and their potential toxicity, begging the question—what in the world does he have to do with da Vinci?

I got the chance to ask him in person when I traveled to his laboratory in October. As it turns out, over years of conducting air pollution research through EPA grants, Sioutas developed several new scientific instruments for capturing air particles and measuring their properties. One of these instruments, a Personal Cascade Impactor Sampler separates airborne particles by size and allows for analysis of the particles’ toxic content.

After developing this new technology, Sioutas started to think outside the box. What if this instrument could be used to understand how exposure to air and particle settling would affect the color longevity of a painting such as, say, The Last Supper?

Sioutas traveled to Milan to present a research proposal to The Last Supper’s curator, Dr. Alberto Artioli, asking just that question. He proposed to use his Impactor to take a series of measurements both inside and outside the legendary Refettorio, where the mural is on display.

Dr. Artioli was “positively impressed” and accepted Sioutas’ proposal. One goal of the project will be to determine the sources of particles settling on the painting, down to such diminutive possibilities as erosion from visitors’ shoes and clothing fibers, in addition to outdoor sources like traffic exhaust.

“It is really an amazing experience,” Sioutas said, beaming, “getting to apply these instruments for such a different task.” According to the project proposal, the study will draw conclusions about “the degradation risks to the Leonardo da Vinci’s painting.”

Read more about the EPA-funded research for developing the Personal Cascade Impactor Sampler at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/5835

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research, part of the Office of Research and Development. Her “OnAir” Science Wednesday posts chronicle EPA-funded research on clean air.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

During my October visit to Southern California, I caught up with Dr. Williams Hinds at UCLA.

Hinds, an EPA STAR grantee and researcher at the Southern California Particle Center, received two national awards in 2009 in different fields of research.

Now an Emeritus Professor at UCLA, where he has taught and researched for the past 27 years, Hinds has spent a long career focused primarily on air pollution exposure research.

Arantza Eiguren, an analytical chemist who works closely with Hinds on an EPA funded project noted that he has trained some of the most influential aerosol scientists of our time.

“And, he wrote one of the best books there is on aerosols,” she said in reference to his 1999 text, Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, And Measurement of Airborne Particles, 2nd Ed.

Hinds received the Donald E. Cummings Memorial Award from the American Industrial Hygiene Association in June, 2009. The award is a tribute to Donald E. Cummings, the Association’s third president and is given for outstanding contributions to the knowledge and practice of the profession of industrial hygiene.

Just a few months later, Hinds received word of winning the David Sinclair Award from the American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR). The award recognizes excellence in aerosol research and technology.

AAAR emphasized the breadth of Hinds’ contributions. “Hinds’ academic career includes extensive peer reviewed publications, research grants, and membership on technical and standard setting committees,” the award announcement read.

I chatted with Hinds just one day after he was notified of the second award. His delight in both accomplishments was evident.

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research, part of the Office of Research and Development.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

On a recent visit to the Southern California Particle Center, amidst the cold sterility of lab equipment and the drone of machinery, a feeling of warmth was palpable. I was there to discuss organic chemistry and toxicology and learn about chemical processes, but couldn’t help noticing something else.

As director John Froines and lead investigator Art Cho discussed their latest scientific findings, references to their strong friendship and deep appreciation of working together repeatedly crept into the conversation. When asked separately about personal investments in the Particle Center, each immediately referenced the other.

“John and I can sit and talk. He’s also an organic chemist… so we can talk in a common language,” Cho said of the pair’s hours-long daily conversations about chemistry and science.

The Particle Center is an air pollution research consortium funded by a multi-million dollar EPA grant. Scientists at the Center are encouraged to work collaboratively to address questions about air pollution exposure that have real world significance, especially in Los Angeles, where the Center is based.

But to these scientists, their work is more than a just a job. Over and over, each emphasized the personal satisfaction gained through years of intellectual partnership.

“Art Cho is 81. I’m 70. Do you realize the joy that we have, two of us old chemistry codgers, being able to do the science in a multidisciplinary way?” Froines asked, rhetorically.

Cho echoed the sentiment, expressing his enthusiasm with an inescapable air of academia.

“I’m having fun, as it were,” he mused.

At 81, Cho is still working as a full time lead investigator in his UCLA labs. When the subject of potential retirement was broached, Froines jumped in on Cho’s behalf without hesitation,

“Don’t you even…” he warned with a grin, “…that word is forbidden!”

Whoever said research science was an antisocial career path has clearly not met these chemistry vets. As I proceed on my travels, I’ll continue sharing stories of the cast of characters that study the air we breathe.

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research, part of the Office of Research and Development.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.
In this month’s Bioscience , we lead a team of ecologists, epidemiologists, an economist, and policy analyst on an article linking biodiversity decline and infectious disease transmission.

For the paper, the research team reviewed and compared seven case studies—malaria, schistosomiasis, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome, enteric disease, and allergic diseases—and developed a typology of proposed mechanisms linking human health and biodiversity, from the level of genes to habitats.

What did we find? For one thing, the recent emergence and reemergence of infectious diseases appears to be driven by globalization and ecological disruption. We propose that habitat destruction and biodiversity loss can increase the incidence and distribution of infectious diseases affecting humans.

We think the article could have a major impact on our understanding of the relationship between biodiversity and human health, and the use of new environmentally-based strategies to protect both the environment and public health.

Protecting natural areas, such as national parks and refuges, is the focus of many conservation efforts, but this approach alone cannot prevent biodiversity loss. And since typically not very many people live near these areas, most people don’t realize how valuable they are.

We suggest that biodiversity protection may be just as important to people on a local scale, in their everyday lives, and that science-based management approaches can produce co-benefits for conservation and for human health.

Our paper is a truly interdisciplinary undertaking. While we have training in public health and conservation biology, our fellow contributors include ecologists, epidemiologists, an economist, and a policy analyst. As is the case with biodiversity protection, we believe that this interdisciplinary approach has multiple advantages. It allows us to explore biodiversity conservation, the history of disease, and to take an economic perspective (relevant to decision-making processes) on these disciplines.

The paper concludes with ways we think we can move forward in research and policy, but that will certainly involve more interdisciplinary work on our part. We’re looking forward to that!

About the Authors: Montira Pongsiri, PhD, MPH, is an Environmental Health Scientist in EPA’s Office of the Science Advisor, and Joe Roman, PhD, is a conservation biologist and a Fellow at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington. He was previously at the EPA as a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

I joined the Air Team at EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research this past July. Fresh out of a dual masters program in Environmental Science and Digital Media Journalism at Columbia University, I was excited to start and, frankly, to have a job at all.

I read up on EPA extensively, but still wasn’t sure what to expect. What was EPA going to do with a science journalist?

I was thrown head first into a whirlwind of scientific papers and air quality regulations. I was stalked by a rapidly multiplying army of acronyms (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres = ALOHA) and struggled to keep the identities of all the Barbaras in our office straight (there are at least three).

But soon I began to get a clearer picture. NCER provides funding to conduct research that health care professionals and policymakers use to protect public health. While unlimited funds would be nice, the finite allowance means having to determine what science is most critical.

As it turns out, the air research funded by NCER is pretty exciting. Results have emerged showing that air pollution increases mortality risk, air pollution exposure can lead to heart attacks, the diabetes community may be more susceptible to air pollution risks than others, and air quality improvements thus far have lengthened human lives by seven months— just to name a few.

So… why am I here?

This exciting science needs to be communicated so that folks without a PhD in atmospheric chemistry can understand these groundbreaking results. We want the research to be as transparent and accessible as possible so that everyone can understand the science behind the air they breathe.

I am beginning a tour of research labs across the country. To start, I’ll be visiting the five EPA-funded Particulate Matter (PM) Research Centers, where scientists work together across disciplines to address the health risks of air pollution. I’ll also be visiting EPA’s own scientists and labs, where innovative in-house research on air pollution is taking place.

I’ll use Science Wednesday as a venue for sharing some of what I find— interesting projects, intriguing personalities, and exciting results.

I’ve recently returned from my first visit to the Southern California Particle Center; posts from the trip are coming soon.

Next stop… Harvard.

About the Author: Becky Fried is a student contractor with EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research, part of the Office of Research and Development.