|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
© 2009 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.149088
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
Julia Green Brody, Ami Zota, and Ruthann A. Rudel are with the Silent Spring Institute, Newton, MA. Rachel Morello-Frosch is with the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management and the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. Phil Brown is with the Department of Sociology and the Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI. At the time of the study, Carla Pérez was with Communities for a Better Environment, Oakland, CA.
Correspondence: Correspondence should be sent to Julia Green Brody, PhD, Silent Spring Institute, 29 Crafts St, Newton, MA 02458 (e-mail: brody{at}silentspring.org). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking on the "Reprints/Eprints" link.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
Objectives. We compared an urban fence-line community (neighboring an oil refinery) and a nonindustrial community in an exposure study focusing on pollutants of interest with respect to breast cancer and environmental justice.
Methods. We analyzed indoor and outdoor air from 40 homes in industrial Richmond, California, and 10 in rural Bolinas, California, for 153 compounds, including particulates and endocrine disruptors.
Results. Eighty compounds were detected outdoors in Richmond and 60 in Bolinas; Richmond concentrations were generally higher. Richmond's vanadium and nickel levels indicated effects of heavy oil combustion from oil refining and shipping; these levels were among the state's highest. In nearly half of Richmond homes, PM2.5 exceeded California's annual ambient air quality standard. Paired outdoor–indoor measurements were significantly correlated for industry- and traffic-related PM2.5, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, elemental carbon, metals, and sulfates (r = 0.54–0.92, P < .001).
Conclusions. Indoor air quality is an important indicator of the cumulative impact of outdoor emissions in fence-line communities. Policies based on outdoor monitoring alone add to environmental injustice concerns in communities that host polluters. Community-based participatory exposure research can contribute to science and stimulate and inform action on the part of community residents and policymakers.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
With a sprawling oil refinery in the background, Marleen Quint, Wanna Wright, and Etta Lundy stood on a hill overlooking Richmond, California, holding up a photograph of Quint's mastectomy scars.1 The women were propelled by their breast cancer diagnoses to ask whether their own cancers as well as neighborhood problems with asthma, sore throats, rashes, other cancers, and children's development were related to chemical exposures from nearby industry and rail, truck, and marine shipping corridors. Their question is part of an emerging crossover of interests between environmental justice and breast cancer advocacy2–5 that is driven not only by personal experiences but also by breast cancer statistics for ethnic minority women; environmental hypotheses that link the same pollutants to breast cancer and to health issues of concern in low-income, minority communities; and new partnerships between communities and scientists.6–9
In the United States, the breast cancer incidence rate is higher among African American women younger than 40 years than among White women in the same age group,10,11 and mortality rates among African American women are higher in all age groups, even when access to mammography and treatment are equivalent.12 Among older women, the incidence rate is lower in the African American population than in the White population,11 but the gap may be closing.13,14 Meanwhile, incidence rates are rising rapidly among US immigrants15–17 and in industrializing nations.18
Environmental chemical pollutants hypothesized to cause breast cancer include some that have been associated with higher breast cancer risk in several human studies, for example polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); animal mammary gland carcinogens, including PAHs, pesticides such as chlorothalonil, and flame retardants such as tris(2,3-dibromo-1-propyl) phosphate; and endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), including bisphenol A, alkylphenols, phthalates, and pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and pyrethroids.19–21 Thus, the chemicals of interest in breast cancer research include urban air pollutants, industrial chemicals, and pesticides to which low-income, minority populations are disproportionately exposed.6,22 Such exposures are also hypothesized to affect health outcomes such as premature puberty, asthma, obesity, and cognitive development that disproportionately affect low-income, minority populations.23–26
|
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD EXPOSURE STUDY COLLABORATIVE |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
Through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences environmental justice grants program, we established a community-based participatory research (CBPR) collaboration involving the Silent Spring Institute, which focuses on the environment and women's health, especially breast cancer27; Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), the environmental justice organization in which Quint, Wright, and Lundy are active28; and faculty at Brown University and the University of California, Berkeley. We addressed breast cancer and environmental justice concerns in an exposure study that expanded the Silent Spring Institute Household Exposure Study (part of the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study)29 to neighborhoods bordering an oil refinery in Richmond, where CBE has an active environmental justice campaign, and rural Bolinas, California, which provided a regional comparison.
We decided to conduct an exposure study because an epidemiological breast cancer study within Richmond probably would not have been informative, given the community's size and lack of relevant historical exposure measurements. An exposure study of compounds of toxicological concern can assess the extent of a problem and inform exposure reduction efforts.30 We focused on household exposures because people spend 90% of their time indoors, often at home, and household environments have not been well characterized.31,32 We tested for compounds hypothesized to affect breast cancer and additional products of oil combustion and refining that serve as indicators for the large number of uncharacterized emissions from oil refineries.
Our study included several goals related to policy, exposure science, and community education. Our policy goals were to provide data that would inform local decisions about the Richmond oil refinery, California state biomonitoring and chemicals policies,33,34 and national debates regarding the use of EDCs in consumer products.
Our exposure science goals were to test for chemical markers of oil refinery emissions in homes, characterize the cumulative effects of emissions in an environmental justice community by measuring an exceptionally large and diverse set of pollutants from outdoor and indoor sources, assess geographic and sociodemographic differences in EDC exposures by comparing Cape Cod, Massachusetts, with an industrial neighborhood in California, and describe outdoor EDC levels. (An environmental justice community is composed of low-income or ethnic minority residents disproportionately affected by environmental pollution.) To our knowledge, no previous reports on these issues have been published.
Finally, one of our educational goals was to inform community members about important determinants of their indoor air quality. The other goal was to inform them about current scientific knowledge on potential relationships between indoor exposures and health, including breast cancer.
|
RESEARCH SETTING |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
To inform CBE's organizing and advocacy, we focused on the Liberty and Atchison Village neighborhoods of Richmond, in Contra Costa County: 66 acres that border a Chevron oil refinery and truck, rail, and marine shipping corridors35 (see Figure S1, available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org). The area's uniform 1- and 2-story housing was constructed for shipyard workers during World War II. According to the 2000 census, the community was 61% Latino (many residents were monolingual Spanish speakers), 18% African American, and 3% Asian American; 26% of residents had incomes below the federal poverty level ($17 603 for a family of 4), and half had incomes below 200% of the poverty level.36 Richmond has high cancer and respiratory risks associated with toxic industrial releases.37 Contra Costa's 15% asthma prevalence rate is among the state's highest,38 and its breast cancer incidence rate is higher than the statewide rate.39 These statistics highlight Richmond's enhanced vulnerability to multiple pollutant exposures.
The Richmond Chevron refinery is one of the nation's largest, covering 2900 acres and processing more than 240 000 barrels of crude oil a day40 into gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and lubricants. It employs approximately 1000 workers.41 CBE was concerned about air pollution from flaring (venting and uncontrolled burning of gaseous emissions in routine operations and emergencies)42 and about requested permit changes to replace and add equipment43 that reportedly would increase overall throughput44 and increase emission of sulfur dioxide, sulfates, and metals45 through refining of lower grade crude oil with higher sulfur content.
|
FOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS WITH OUTDOOR SOURCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
Here, in our first report on the CBPR process and study design, we focus on results that pertain most directly to environmental justice. We describe the compounds detected (as an indication of cumulative impact) and pollutants with significant outdoor sources, as evidenced by higher outdoor concentrations in industrial Richmond than in rural Bolinas. We include for comparison an indoor-source chemical (dibutyl phthalate) to demonstrate the contrast between outdoor- and indoor-source compounds.
Results of additional analyses focusing on indoor-source chemicals, many of which are EDCs, will be published in a subsequent article, and analyses of questionnaire responses and refinery emergency releases as predictors of pollutant levels are under way. We previously reported dramatic geographic differences in brominated flame retardants (polybrominated diphenyl ethers), with the higher levels observed in California than other areas probably due to the state's strict furniture flammability standard.46 We have written elsewhere about our methods for reporting personal exposure results to participants.47,48
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
After a CBPR collaborative process49,50 designed to consider what data would address mutual goals of the project partners, we sampled air and dust from 40 homes in Richmond and 10 in Bolinas, as well as outdoor air near each home. Samples were analyzed for industrial and traffic pollutants, such as particulates, metals, PAHs, ammonia, and sulfates, and for many EDCs, including pesticides, flame retardants, phthalates, and phenols.
CBPR Strategy
We gathered information on community health concerns, drew on CBE's relationships with public officials, held annual community meetings, and convened an advisory council that included neighborhood activists, breast cancer and biomonitoring activists, a state health official, and an academic researcher. On the basis of this input, we designed research to assess the cumulative effects and specific sources of indoor pollution originating from outdoor emissions.
The advisory council requested a comparison with rural northern California that would supplement the comparison with Cape Cod and maximize the contrast for assessing the cumulative impact of Richmond outdoor emissions. This request led to an additional community partnership with the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center in Bolinas,51 a nonindustrial coastal community. We deliberated how our results would affect refinery expansion plans. We expected to detect compounds associated with oil refining in Richmond homes; however, we were mindful that if we did not, our results might undermine CBE's refinery campaign, even though any negative findings might be due to inadequacies in our methods.
The research protocol was approved by Brown University's institutional review board in a novel agreement that covered both academic and community-based researchers, representing a significant accomplishment for our collaborative. Traditionally, university institutional review boards do not cover outside organizations, leaving community groups with the expense of contracting with an independent review board and diminishing the academic–community partnership. All individuals with access to personally identifiable data were formally trained with respect to ethics in human subjects research.
Selection of Households for Sampling
Balancing the goals of collecting representative neighborhood data and creating opportunities to involve CBE members, we recruited 40 nonsmoking households in the Atchison Village and Liberty neighborhoods of Richmond through door knocks at randomly selected addresses (22 participants) and announcements at community meetings (18 participants). We obtained a list of all 550 eligible residential addresses from the county tax assessor's office and the management of the Liberty Village Apartments. We mailed a letter describing the study in English and Spanish to each home.
Using a randomized address list, a CBE researcher approached 132 nonvacant residences, contacting a resident at 74 (56%); 31% of contacted eligible homes participated. Six residents agreed but could not be scheduled, 3 were ineligible, and 43 declined; we were unable to contact 58 residents. We used snowball sampling to recruit 10 participants in Bolinas; the sample size was constrained by costs (for a chart of the sampling procedure, see Figure S2, available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org).
Data Collection and Chemical Analysis
CBE staff were equipped and trained to collect samples and conduct interviews. Samples were collected between June and October 2006. EDC indoor sampling and analytical methods have been described elsewhere.29 Paired indoor and outdoor air samplers collected parallel 24-hour integrated samples. University Research Glassware (Chapel Hill, NC) personal pesticide samplers (polyurethane foam plus sorbent XAD2) were used to collect semivolatile compounds at a flow rate of approximately 8 L per minute (as described by Rudel et al.29). For the 42 homes sampled between August and October 2006, respirable particulate (PM2.5, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) samples were also collected at a flow rate of approximately 5 L per minute on Teflon filters alongside the semivolatile sampler attached to the same high-volume pump. A parallel sample was collected on a quartz filter for carbon fractions and water-soluble ions.52,53 Field blanks and duplicate samples were collected for quality assurance and quality control purposes.
A researcher observed characteristics of the home, including room size, open and closed windows, and rugs and carpets, and interviewed participants about demographic characteristics, consumer product use, and expectations about the study. The Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, TX) and the Desert Research Institute (Las Vegas, NV) analyzed the samples for 153 analytes, including phthalates, alkylphenols, other phenols, parabens, banned and contemporary-use pesticides, PAHs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, PCBs, particulates, metals, water-soluble ions, carbon fractions, and ammonia.
We obtained 24-hour integrated measurements from all 15 California Environmental Protection Agency monitors where PM2.5 speciation data were gathered during the time of our data collection54 (Figure S3 shows monitor locations, available as a supplement to the online version of the article at http://www.ajph.org). Comparison data from state monitors were available for PM2.5, elemental and organic carbon, sulfates, nitrates, and metals. We selected PM2.5, elemental and organic carbon, sulfates, vanadium, nickel, and sodium for comparison because they are indicators of specific emission source categories. We calculated summary measures for August through October 2006.
Data Analysis
In addition to comparing Richmond data and Bolinas data, we compared outdoor measurements with indoor measurements and with state monitors. For each analyte, the method reporting limit was defined as the maximum of the analytical detection limit and the 90th percentile of the field blank concentrations. Values below the method reporting limit were not included in the percentage detected but were treated as estimated values to allow visualization of distributions (e.g., in box plots) and comparison of medians. We used the Fisher exact test to evaluate differences in the numbers of compounds detected between Richmond and Bolinas and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to assess differences in pollutant levels.
To address environmental justice concerns about outdoor emissions sources in Richmond, we evaluated the contribution of outdoor sources to indoor pollution by comparing outdoor with indoor concentrations and calculating Spearman rank correlations between outdoor and indoor levels for compounds that had higher concentrations or were more frequently detected in Richmond outdoor air than in Bolinas outdoor air. For these compounds, measured or estimated values were available for at least 70% of indoor–outdoor pairs. The level of statistical significance was set at P < .05.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
Participants were predominantly middle-aged women. With respect to race/ethnicity (participants were allowed to select more than one option), 41% of the participants in Richmond self-identified as Hispanic, 54% self-identified as White, and 11% selected another race/ethnicity; 38% were interviewed in Spanish. In Bolinas, none of the participants were Hispanic, 80% were White, and 40% selected another race/ethnicity. In Richmond, 37% had a college education, as compared with 100% in Bolinas (see Table S1, available as a supplement to the online version of the article at http://www.ajph.org).
Cumulative Effects
Chemical exposures in Richmond were greater than those in Bolinas. We detected 80 compounds in Richmond outdoor air and 60 in Bolinas outdoor air. Differences in indoor air were more pronounced, with 104 compounds detected in Richmond and 69 in Bolinas (detection frequencies are shown in Table S2, available as a supplement to the online version of the article at http://www.ajph.org). In the case of the 56 compounds detected in both communities, outdoor levels were significantly higher for 33 in Richmond and 1 (diethyl phthalate) in Bolinas (Wilcoxon P 
.05). Median and maximum concentrations of these 33 compounds are shown in Table 1.52,55–62 Richmond outdoor levels were significantly higher for refinery-related sulfates, vanadium, and ammonia and other industry- and transportation-related pollutants, including PM2.5, PAHs, carbon fractions, and metals. Outdoor levels of 2 phthalates and o-phenylphenol were also significantly higher in Richmond (detailed results for EDCs will be published in an upcoming article).
|
Indoor air in nearly half of Richmond homes exceeded California's annual ambient air quality standard for PM2.5, often considered an aggregate measure of air pollution; indoor levels were higher than outdoor levels in both communities (Figure 1). EDCs were detected more frequently indoors than outdoors in both communities.
|
Indoor Penetration of Outdoor Pollutants
To examine the impact of outdoor pollutant emissions on indoor air, we evaluated relationships between paired outdoor and indoor measurements for the 33 chemicals measured at higher levels outdoors in Richmond. Figure 2 illustrates outdoor and indoor concentrations for an example outdoor-source and an example indoor-source pollutant. In the case of sulfates, a frequent by-product of industrial pollution with few indoor sources (Figure 2ab), there was a strong correlation (r = 0.92; P < .001) between paired outdoor and indoor measurements, and outdoor concentrations were consistently higher than indoor concentrations, indicating that outdoor sulfates were penetrating indoors. Strong correlations between outdoor and indoor concentrations were observed for vanadium, selenium, calcium, iron, and manganese (Spearman
range: 0.7–0.9; P < .001), and outdoor concentrations were higher than indoor concentrations.
|
Outdoor–indoor levels and correlations for PM2.5, many of the PAHs (e.g., acenaphthene, fluorene, and fluoranthene), lanthanum, and elemental carbon (Spearman
range: 0.4–0.6; P < .05) suggested both outdoor and indoor sources and indicated that outdoor air is an important source of these pollutants indoors. By contrast, there were high indoor levels of di-n-butyl phthalate, commonly found in personal care products, and a lack of correlation between paired outdoor and indoor measurements, indicating that indoor sources dominate (Figure 2cd). A similar pattern was observed for other EDCs, including bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, and o-phenylphenol, and for organic carbon fractions, ammonia, and some PAHs (e.g., pyrene and methylphenanthrenes).
Comparison With State Monitors
In another approach to analyzing the influence of local and regional outdoor sources, we compared outdoor measurements in Richmond and Bolinas with California Environmental Protection Agency monitoring data for the same time period as our study. For vanadium and nickel (which are markers of heavy oil combustion, especially from oil refineries and marine ports52,63,64), Richmond was near the top of the distribution, with the second-highest 95th percentile concentration. For sulfates, which tend to be influenced by both regional and local sources, including power plants, automobiles, and oil refineries, Richmond levels were in the top third.
In the case of pollutants such as PM2.5, elemental and organic carbon, and nitrates deriving primarily from mobile sources, Richmond was in the lower half of the distribution. For sodium, a marker of ocean air, Richmond levels were among the highest of all monitoring sites. In Bolinas, levels for all pollutants were low, whereas sodium levels were comparable to those in Richmond. Results for vanadium, nickel, PM2.5, and sulfates are shown in Figure 3, ordered according to 95th percentile concentrations.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
Our results provide evidence regarding 3 important environmental justice concerns: the character and magnitude of cumulative exposures in urban fence-line communities (communities that neighbor polluting facilities), the limitations of outdoor ambient monitoring as an indicator of personal exposure, and the impact of specific local sources on air quality in proximate neighborhoods. As expected, more pollutants and higher outdoor concentrations were detected in Richmond than in Bolinas. Heavy oil combustion was a more prominent factor than traffic in differences between the 2 communities. Despite high traffic in Richmond, outdoor concentrations of PM2.5 and traffic-related pollutants were in the low half of the range reported by state monitors, perhaps as a result of meteorological effects of the study neighborhood's proximity to the coast.
By contrast, Richmond levels of nickel and vanadium (known to come from heavy oil combustion, especially in refinery operations and marine shipping) were among the highest in the state. These compounds, along with sulfates (also associated with refineries), penetrated into Richmond homes, as demonstrated by correlations between outdoor and indoor concentrations. Health studies have shown that sulfates, nickel, and vanadium are some of the most harmful PM2.5 components.65,66 Furthermore, these compounds are indicators of probable exposures to hundreds of unmeasured compounds given that refinery emissions are complex and poorly characterized.67,68
The significant correlations we observed between outdoor and indoor levels of PM2.5, sulfates, and other pollutants are consistent with the results of other studies showing that outdoor air pollution is an important determinant of indoor exposures.31,59,69,70 The finding that local outdoor emissions penetrate indoors bears directly on Richmond refinery permits for activities that increase or decrease outdoor emissions, and our observations have implications for facility reviews elsewhere as well.
The much higher levels of pollutants indoors than outdoors indicate that traditional environmental impact assessments based on outdoor air quality are inadequate to represent personal exposures. California's ambient air quality standard is not intended to be applied to indoor air; however, it is of concern that nearly half of Richmond homes exceeded this standard for PM2.5 during the summer, when outdoor PM2.5 levels are markedly lower than in winter. Epidemiological studies have consistently linked this pollutant to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, including premature death.71 In addition, the PAHs and other compounds we detected may be associated with breast cancer.20,21 Socioeconomic stressors in Richmond may amplify the detrimental health effects of chemicals we observed.8,72
Our results also have implications for policies concerning EDCs in consumer products. Outdoor levels were lower than and not correlated with indoor levels for chemicals coming primarily from consumer products, such as di-n-butyl phthalate. We observed few differences in EDC levels between our 2 markedly different communities. These results suggest that consumer products contribute substantially to indoor air quality and indicate the need for state or national remedies, such as the efforts of breast cancer organizations to secure proactive chemical policies and launch consumer campaigns to reduce the use of EDCs.73,74
Limitations of our study include the small number of homes sampled in Bolinas. Also, as a result of financial constraints, we sampled each home only once. Multiseason sampling would better characterize long-term, typical exposures and capture higher wintertime PM2.5 levels. We were unable to collect samples directly representing emissions from refineries or other sources to compare with household contaminant profiles. In addition, although our study focused on a poor, largely Latino community, members of racial/ethnic minority groups and less educated residents were underrepresented in our sample. Finally, given the large number of comparisons of individual chemicals, some of our findings may be attributable to chance.
The strengths of the study include the use of a standard protocol in Richmond and Bolinas, the inclusion of paired indoor and outdoor samples and a broad range of analytes, comparability with state monitoring data, collaboration between diverse academic and community partners, and attention to individual and community communications regarding the study. Unlike environmental justice investigations of industrial and transportation pollution that typically rely on ambient air monitoring or facility emissions data, we collected unique local data on personal exposures in the home.
Public Health Applications
During our study, refinery permit changes were proposed that could increase harmful pollutant emissions45 in Richmond via the refining of higher sulfur crude oil. CBE mobilized testimony against the plan before the Richmond Planning Commission and the city council, urging them to consider the existing cumulative pollutant burdens documented in our study. News stories highlighted our results,75,76 and city council members asked us to testify.77 Study participants used their individual data and aggregate results in their own testimony, vividly demonstrating how our study helped activate and expand community engagement in environmental justice issues. At community meetings, discussions spontaneously turned to ways to use results to negotiate health protections from the oil company.
Testimony and media coverage of our findings led the Richmond Planning Commission to attempt to restrict high-sulfur crude oil refining. However, as gasoline prices climbed and the company offered Richmond $60 million in mitigation benefits, the city council reversed the planning commission's recommendation and approved the Chevron proposal in July 2008.44 Thus, although our study influenced deliberations, the company's socioeconomic and political muscle in this cash-strapped city wielded a stronger influence. Later, the November 2008 election of new council members changed the balance again, and Richmond residents also passed a ballot measure that would require Chevron to pay the city an annual business license fee estimated at $26.5 million.
Although we cannot yet assess the significance of this study for CBE, we now have empirical results to support concerns about the effects of refinery emissions, and we know that CBE valued the study's process. As CBE staff conducted interviews and set up sampling equipment, the study helped demystify science by moving the data-gathering process into people's homes. That experience encouraged community members to think in new ways about sources of chemicals around them. These discussions enabled CBE to connect its organizing work with technical analysis—each central to environmental justice—and may strengthen CBE's long-term organizing and advocacy capacity.
This experience illustrates the CBPR view that both scientific outcomes and the research process are important. The future of the refinery expansion continues to unfold as CBE pursues a long-term mobilization effort that includes disseminating results from our study, engaging in litigation, and conducting a health symptoms survey with other neighborhood and environmental justice groups.
Conclusions
Environmental justice assessments should consider indoor exposures from local polluters. In this study, we found that cumulative air pollution burdens were more pronounced indoors than outdoors in an urban industrial environmental justice community in comparison with a rural community. Indoor air in nearly half of the environmental justice community homes in our study exceeded the California ambient air quality standard for respirable particulates, even though the residents were nonsmokers. High levels of contaminants associated with oil refining and marine shipping were detected both outdoors and indoors. Participation in this CBPR study mobilized and supported community efforts to block permits for the neighboring oil refinery. Our results also can inform a variety of individual- and policy-level exposure reduction efforts and the design of future studies focusing on air pollutants and breast cancer and other health outcomes.
|
Human Participant Protection |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
The research protocol was approved by Brown University's institutional review board. Participants provided informed consent prior to initiation of sample collection in their homes.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Peer Reviewed
J. Green Brody, R. Morello-Frosch, P. Brown, C. Pérez, and R. A. Rudel planned and supervised the study. J. Green Brody led the writing, with substantial contributions from the other authors. A. Zota conducted the statistical analysis and reported results to participants. All of the authors helped to conceptualize ideas and review drafts of the article.
Accepted for publication March 16, 2009.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONNORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLD...RESEARCH SETTINGFOCUS ON INDOOR POLLUTANTS...METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONHuman Participant ProtectionReferences |
|---|
1. Duncan DE. The pollution within. National Geographic. Available at: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/10/table-of-contents. Accessed July 3, 2009.
2. Brown P. Toxic Exposures: Contested Illnesses and the Environmental Health Movement. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2007.
3. Mayne L, Glascoff M. Service learning: preparing a healthcare workforce for the next century. Nurse Educ. 2002;27:191–194.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Klawiter M. Racing for the cure, walking women, and toxic touring: mapping cultures of action within the Bay Area terrain of breast cancer. Soc Probl. 1999;46:104–126.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
5. California Breast Cancer Research Program. Identifying gaps in breast cancer research: addressing disparities and the roles of the physical and social environment. Available at: http://www.cbcrp.org/sri/reports/identifyingGaps/SRI_FRONTMATTER.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2009.
6. Gee GC, Payne-Sturges D. Environmental health disparities: a framework integrating psychosocial and environmental concepts. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112:1645–1653.[Web of Science][Medline]
7. Brody JG, Tickner J, Rudel RA. Community-initiated breast cancer and environment studies and the precautionary principle. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:920–925.[Web of Science][Medline]
8. Morello-Frosch R, Lopez R. The riskscape and the color line: examining the role of segregation in environmental health disparities. Environ Res. 2006;102:181–196.[Medline]
9. Brown P, McCormick S, Mayer B, et al.. "A lab of our own": environmental causation of breast cancer and challenges to the dominant epidemiological paradigm. Sci Technol Human Values. 2006;31:499–536.
10. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2007–2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society.; 2007.
11. Baquet CR, Mishra SI, Commiskey P, Ellison GL, DeShields M. Breast cancer epidemiology in blacks and whites: disparities in incidence, mortality, survival rates and histology. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008;100:480–488.[Medline]
12. Field TS, Buist DS, Doubeni C, et al.. Disparities and survival among breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005;35:88–95.
13. Krieger N. Social class and the black/white crossover in the age-specific incidence of breast cancer: a study linking census-derived data to population-based registry records. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;131:804–814.
14. Smigal C, Jemal A, Ward E, et al.. Trends in breast cancer by race and ethnicity: update 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:168–183.
15. Ziegler RG, Hoover RN, Pike MC, et al.. Migration patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian-American women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1819–1827.
16. Deapen D, Liu L, Perkins C, Bernstein L, Ross RK. Rapidly rising breast cancer incidence rates among Asian-American women. Int J Cancer. 2002;99:747–750.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
17. Kolonel LH, Wilkens LR. Migrant Studies. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2006.
18. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108.
19. Brody JG, Rudel RA. Environmental pollutants and breast cancer: the evidence from animal and human studies. Breast Dis Year Book Q. 2008;19:17–19.[CrossRef]
20. Brody JG, Moysich KB, Humblet O, Attfield KR, Beehler GP, Rudel RA. Environmental pollutants and breast cancer: epidemiologic studies. Cancer. 2007;109(suppl_12):2667–2711.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
21. Rudel RA, Attfield KR, Schifano J, Brody JG. Chemicals causing mammary gland tumors in animals signal new directions for epidemiology, chemicals testing, and risk assessment for breast cancer prevention. Cancer. 2007;109(suppl 12):2635–2666.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
22. Morello-Frosch R, Shenassa E. The environmental "riskscape" and social inequality: implications for explaining maternal and child health disparities. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:1150–1153.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. Carpenter DO. Environmental contaminants as risk factors for developing diabetes. Rev Environ Health. 2008;23:59–74.[Medline]
24. Holguin F. Traffic, outdoor air pollution, and asthma. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2008;28:577–588.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25. Gold DR, Wright R. Population disparities in asthma. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:89–113.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Steingraber S. The falling age of puberty in US girls: what we know, what we need to know. Available at: http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=3266509. Accessed July 3, 2009.
27. Silent Spring Institute home page. Available at: http://www.silentspring.org. Accessed July 3, 2009.
28. Communities for a Better Environment home page. Available at: http://www.cbecal.org. Accessed July 3, 2009.
29. Rudel RA, Camann DE, Spengler JD, Korn LR, Brody JG. Phthalates, alkylphenols, pesticides, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds in indoor air and dust. Environ Sci Technol. 2003;37:4543–4553.[Medline]
30. Brody JG. Everyday exposures and breast cancer. Available at: http://silentspring.org/pdf/our_publications/brody_presidents%20cancer%20panel_12_04_08.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2009.
31. Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, et al.. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2001;11:231–252.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
32. Indoor Pollution: Status of Federal Research Activities. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 1999.
33. California Dept of Public Health. California Biomonitoring Program. Available at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Biomonitoring/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed July 3, 2009.
34. California Dept of Toxic Substances Control. Green chemistry. Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/index.cfm?CFID=7666335&CFTOKEN=91087481. Accessed July 3, 2009.
35. Communities for a Better Environment. Northern California campaigns and projects. Available at: http://www.cbecal.org/campaigns/contracosta.html. Accessed July 3, 2009.
36. Census 2000 Summary File 3. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census; 2002.
37. Pastor M, Sadd J, Morello-Frosch R. Still toxic after all these years: air quality and environmental justice in the San Francisco Bay Area. Available at: http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/bay_final.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2009.
38. Milet M, Tran S, Eatherton M, Flattery J, Kreutzer R. The Burden of Asthma in California: A Surveillance Report. Richmond, CA: California Dept of Health Services, Environmental Health Investigations Branch; 2007.
39. National Cancer Institute. State cancer profiles. Available at: http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055. Accessed July 3, 2009.
40. Chevron. What we do: the refining process. Available at: http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/richmond/about/what_we_do.aspx. Accessed July 3, 2009.
41. Chevron. About the refinery. Available at: http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/richmond/about/. Accessed July 3, 2009.
42. Marshall C. New emission rule for Bay Area refineries. New York Times. July 21, 2005:A25.
43. City of Richmond. Conditional use permit number 1101974 and design review permit number 1104423. Available at: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=3627. Accessed July 3, 2009.
44. Jones C. Richmond council OKs Chevron refinery plan. San Francisco Chronicle. Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/17/BA6I11QAUR.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea. Accessed July 3, 2009.
45. Baker DR. Oil facilities are getting refined. San Francisco Chronicle. January 5, 2007:C1.
46. Zota AR, Rudel RA, Morello-Frosch RA, Brody JB. Elevated house dust and serum concentrations of PBDEs in California: unintended consequences of furniture flammability standards? Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42:8158–8164.[Medline]
47. Altman RG, Morello-Frosch R, Brody JG, Rudel RA, Brown P, Averick M. Pollution comes home and gets personal: women's experience of household toxic exposure. J Health Soc Behav. 2008;49:417–435.
48. Brody JG, Morello-Frosch R, Brown P, et al.. Improving disclosure and consent: "is it safe?": new ethics for reporting personal exposures to environmental chemicals. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:1547–1554.
49. O'Fallon LR, Dearry A. Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(suppl 2):155–159.[Web of Science][Medline]
50. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
51. Commonweal. Biomonitoring Resource Center. Available at: http://www.commonweal.org/programs/brc/index.html. Accessed July 3, 2009.
52. Chow JC, Watson JG, Kuhns H, et al.. Source profiles for industrial, mobile, and area sources in the Big Bend Regional Aerosol Visibility and Observational Study. Chemosphere. 2004;54:185–208.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
53. Chow JC, Watson JG, Lowenthal DH, et al.. PM2.5 and PM10 mass measurements in California's San Joaquin Valley. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2006;40:796–810.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
54. 2008 Air Quality. Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board; 2008.
55. Long CM, Suh HH, Koutrakis P. Characterization of indoor particle sources using continuous mass and size monitors. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2000;50:1236–1250.[Web of Science][Medline]
56. Wallace L. Indoor particles: a review. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996;46:98–126.[Web of Science][Medline]
57. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for ammonia. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp126.html. Accessed July 3, 2009.
58. Suh HH, Koutrakis P, Spengler J. The relationship between airborne acidity and ammonia in indoor environments. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1994;4:1–22.[Web of Science][Medline]
59. Naumova YY, Eisenreich SJ, Turpin BJ, et al.. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the indoor and outdoor air of three cities in the US. Environ Sci Technol. 2002;36:2552–2559.[Medline]
60. Rudel RA, Perovich LJ. Endocrine disrupting chemicals in indoor and outdoor air. Atmos Environ. 2009;43:170–181.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
61. Weschler CJ. Changes in indoor pollutants since the 1950s. Atmos Environ. 2009;43:153–169.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
62. US Environmental Protection Agency. Reregistration eligibility decision for 2-phenylphenol and salts (orthophenylphenol or OPP). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/phenylphenol_red.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2009.
63. Krudysz MA, Froines JR, Fine PM, Sioutas C. Intra-community spatial variation of size-fractionated PM mass, OC, EC, and trace elements in the Long Beach, CA area. Atmos Environ. 2008;42:5374–5389.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
64. Kulkarni P, Chellam S, Fraser MP. Lanthanum and lanthanides in atmospheric fine particles and their apportionment to refinery and petrochemical operations in Houston, TX. Atmos Environ. 2006;40:508–520.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
65. Lippmann M, Ito K, Hwang JS, Maciejczyk P, Chen LC. Cardiovascular effects of nickel in ambient air. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:1662–1669.[Web of Science][Medline]
66. Franklin M, Koutrakis P, Schwartz J. The role of particle composition on the association between PM2.5 and mortality. Epidemiology. 2008;19:680–689.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
67. Chambers AK, Strosher M, Wootton T, Moncrieff J, McCready P. Direct measurement of fugitive emissions of hydrocarbons from a refinery. J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 2008;58:1047–1056.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
68. Djupstrom M, Selin E, Oblad M. Fingerprints in the particulate emissions from an oil refinery. J Aerosol Sci. 1989;20(8):1453–1456.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
69. Leaderer BP, Naeher L, Jankun T, et al.. Indoor, outdoor, and regional summer and winter concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, SO42-, H+, NH4+, NO3-, NH3, and nitrous acid in homes with and without kerosene space heaters. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107:223–231.[Web of Science][Medline]
70. Baxter LK, Clougherty JE, Laden F, Levy JI. Predictors of concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, fine particulate matter, and particle constituents inside of lower socioeconomic status urban homes. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2007;17:433–444.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
71. Ostro B, Feng WY, Broadwin R, Green S, Lipsett M. The effects of components of fine particulate air pollution on mortality in California: results from CALFINE. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:13–19.[Web of Science][Medline]
72. DeFur PL, Evans GW, Hubal EA, Kyle AD, Morello-Frosch RA, Williams DA. Vulnerability as a function of individual and group resources in cumulative risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:817–824.[Web of Science][Medline]
73. Gray J, ed. State of the Evidence. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund; 2008.
74. Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition. MBCC projects and campaigns. Available at: http://mbcc.org/acatalog.php?id=2. Accessed July 3, 2009.
75. Bay City News. Study: refinery pollution trapped in homes. Available at: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6070514. Accessed July 3, 2009.
76. Standen A. Richmond air study. KQED [San Francisco] transcript, April 8, 2008.
77. Morello-Frosch R. Letter to Richmond Planning Commission. Available at: http://www.silentspring.org/pdf/our_research/RichmondLetter2008.04.10.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2009.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |