imperial county community air monitoring project: … · imperial county community air monitoring...
TRANSCRIPT
Imperial County Community Air Monitoring Project
Using low cost sensors to develop
a community air monitoring network
Paul English & Michelle Wong | California Environmental Health Tracking ProgramHumberto Lugo & Luis Olmedo | Comite Civico del Valle
Edmund Seto | University of Washington
NIEHS Partnerships for Environmental Public HealthWebinar
August 24, 2017
• History of community-led air monitoring efforts
• New opportunities with next generation sensors
• Democratizing data and science
• Leveraging community knowledge and capacity
• Community air monitoring network as a complement to regulatory monitoring
Community monitoring and low-cost sensors
2
Background
Community engagement
Network deployment
Results/impacts
Conclusions
Today’s presentation
3
BACKGROUND
Humberto Lugo, Comite Civico del Valle
Paul English, California Environmental Health Tracking Program 4
Imperial, CA Agriculture Border crossing Feedlots
Field burning Freight transport Green energy Industrial facilities
Mexicali, Mexico Off-road vehicles Salton Sea Unpaved roads
5
Locations of regulatory monitors in Imperial County
• PM10 standards unmet
• High rates of asthma
• Few regulatory monitors
• Need for more local air quality data
Air quality is a community priority
6
NIEHS grant
• Research to Action
• Jan 2014 – Oct 2018
Main project partners
• CA Environmental Health Tracking Program
• Comite Civico del Valle
• University of Washington
• Consultants: UCLA, GWU
Aims
• Deploy network of 40 PM monitors in Imperial County
• Produce useful, high-quality data
• Implement community actions
• Engage community throughout
• Ensure network sustainability
Project overview
7
Implement community action strategies
Display and disseminate air monitoring results
Real-time Spatial analysis Datasets
Assess, analyze, and interpret data
Design and deploy air monitoring network
Establish community participation structures
8
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Michelle Wong, California Environmental Health Tracking Program 9
• Host monitors
• Data collection and recommendations for site selection
• Identify community actions
Community participants
• Guide project activities throughout
• Some decision-making
• Conduct outreach and represent project
Community Steering
Committee (CSC)• Initiate, design, implement
project activities
• Maintain monitors and reporting website
• Decision-making
Comite Civico del Valle
Partner / Co-investigator
Community participation structure
10
Selecting monitoring locations
First 20 monitor locations
selected through a participatory
process
Second 20 monitor locations
selected based on analysis of
initial data
Step 1: CSC identify priority communities
Step 2: Map land use and vulnerability factors
Step 3: Recruit and train community participants
Step 4: Participants identify, map, and collect data on candidate sites
Step 5: Select first 20 sites
Step 6: Recruit sites to host monitors
11
Deploy 20 community monitors
Land use regression
Identify possible sites for last 20 monitors
Regulatory monitors
12
Transforming research to action
14
NETWORK DEPLOYMENT &
ANALYSIS
Edmund Seto, University of Washington
Humberto Lugo, Comite Civico del Valle 15
Sensors for non-regulatory monitoring
“Community Air Monitors”
Customized low-cost optical
particle counter
+
Small computer& other env sensors(e.g., temp and RH)
+
WirelessNetworking
+
Internet Databaseon the Cloud
with data availableon the web
RobustEnclosure
+
System designed by Graeme Carvlin, PhD student UWDeployed and maintained by Comite Civico del Valle
16
• Site recruitment – CSC assistance with outreach– Siting agreements
• Deployment and maintenance– Monitor assembly– Installation, troubleshooting, repair
• Data ownership– Data reporting: set up CCV servers, transfer scripts– Already using community web platform
Deployment and maintenance
17
• Lab and field validation of monitors
• Colocation with government monitors (CARB and IID)
• Colocation with EBAMs (CARB)
• Formed a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) – Workgroup of air quality stakeholders
that meets regularly
– Includes local air district, California Air Resources Board, US EPA
Evaluating data quality
18
0e+00
2e+05
4e+05
6e+05
8e+05
2015−06−24 2015−07−01 2015−07−08 2015−07−15 2015−07−22
Date
Co
mm
un
ity M
on
ito
rH
ou
rly A
ve
rag
e P
M2.5
Co
un
t (#
/ft3
)
Calexico−Ethel Street Site
0
20
40
60
2015−06−24 2015−07−01 2015−07−08 2015−07−15 2015−07−22
Date
CA
RB
BA
MH
ou
rly P
M2
.5(u
g/m
3)
Calexico−Ethel Street Site
Community Air Monitor(4-bin Dylos)
GovernmentAir Monitor(BAM)
First month of colocation data at government monitoring site
19
Carvlin, et al., 2017 JAWMA
Comparisons to CARB FEM
20
Comparisons to CARB’s EBAMS (non-FEM, non-FRM)
21
Alvarez Tax Service Brawley Residence Brawley Union High School Calexico Housing Authority Calipatria Unified School
CARB Calexico-Ethel CCV Office Frank Wright School Grace Smith Middle School Heber Elementary School
Hidalgo School IID Sonny Bono Kennedy School Meadows Union School Ocotillo Residence
Seeley Unified School TL Wagonner School Westmorland Elementary School Wilson Junior High School
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01 Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01 Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01 Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01
Date
PM
2.5
#/0
.01 ft3
PM2.5 Levels by Site, 1/9/2016 – 2/29/2016 (Prelim data)
Sites are only ½ mile apart
Monitoring data highly correlated: 0.92
22
Alvarez Tax Service Brawley Residence Brawley Union High School Calexico Housing Authority Calipatria Unified School
CARB Calexico-Ethel CCV Office Frank Wright School Grace Smith Middle School Heber Elementary School
Hidalgo School IID Sonny Bono Kennedy School Meadows Union School Ocotillo Residence
Seeley Unified School TL Wagonner School Westmorland Elementary School Wilson Junior High School
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01 Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01 Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01 Jan 15 Feb 01 Feb 15 Mar 01
Date
PM
2.5
#/0
.01 ft3
PM2.5 Levels by Site, 1/9/2016 – 2/29/2016 (Prelim data)
Sites are only ½ mile apart
Monitoring data highly correlated: 0.92
Sites are approximately 10 miles apart
Monitoring data much less correlated: 0.54
• Astrid Calderas, PhD and CSC Member
– Relationship between Ag burning events and PM10 levels
• Graeme Carvlin, PhD Candidate
– Landuse Regression Model for PM2.5 and PM10
• Edmund Seto, PhD
– Comparison of PM Episodes identified by government monitoring network vs. community monitoring network
Current analyses
24
Example of a PM EpisodeDec 10, 2016
32.6
33.0
33.4
-116.0 -115.5 -115.0
Longitude
La
titud
e
PM2.5 mg m3
10
20
30
40
50
60
Episode was observed at CARB’sCalexico site, as well as at 6 community sites.
25
RESULTS & IMPACTS
Humberto Lugo, Comite Civico del Valle
Luis Olmedo, Comite Civico del Valle 26
Better understanding of community air quality
Regulatory monitors
IVAN AIR monitors
27
Community response
28
Project impacts
Community awareness and use
of data
• School flag programs
• Start flag program at senior center
• CSC member post-doctoral research
Increased CSC engagement and
leadership
• Imperial EJ Task Force
• Cal/EPA Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
• SW High School student program
Increased attention and responsiveness
• Local air district
• CA Air Resources Board
• Janet McCabe/EPA
• Department of Toxics Substances Control
• Media stories
Government interest in using data and model
• Cal/EPA EJ screening tool
• To evaluate Salton Sea mitigation projects
• Implementation plan for AB 617
29
Expansion: Eastern Coachella
• Direct expansion of Imperial network
• Local community partner: La Union Hace La Fuerza
• Separate Coachella CSC
Replication: San Ysidro
• UW, Casa Familiar, San Diego State U, Cal/EPA
• Different pollutants, different purpose, same model
• We provided technical assistance during planning phase
• Data displaying on IVAN
Inspiration for future projects?
• Secretary of the Environment, Baja Mexico
• Other IVAN communities
Expansion, replication, inspiration
30
CONCLUSIONS
Paul English, California Environmental Health Tracking Program 31
• Complete analyses
• Share information
• Enhance network
• Plan for transition from NIEHS funding
Next steps
32
• Use of low-cost sensors in a community air monitoring network provides useful, actionable information
• Technical challenges still occur despite ease of use and regardless of operator
• Community engagement benefits all partners
• Plan with sustainability and community ownership as a stated goal
Conclusions
33
Acknowledgments
California Environmental Health Tracking Program
▪ Paul English
▪ Galatea King
▪ Dan Meltzer
▪ Alexa Wilkie
▪ Michelle Wong
Comite Civico del Valle
▪ Esther Bejarano
▪ Israel Cruz
▪ Humberto Lugo
▪ Luis Olmedo
University of Washington
▪ Graeme Carvlin
▪ Katie Fellows
▪ Edmund Seto
George Washington University▪ Amanda Northcross
University of California, Los Angeles▪ Michael Jerrett
Web Developers▪ Tyler Lopez▪ Eduardo Murillo▪ Carlos Zamora
Community Participants and Air Monitor Hosts
Technical Advisory Group
Equipment loans/colocations▪ CA Air Resources Board▪ Imperial Irrigation District▪ US EPA
This project funded by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant R01ES022722 CEHTP is a collaboration of the Public Health Institute and the California Department of Public Health
Community Steering Committee
▪ Ray Askins
▪ Alejandro Bejarano
▪ Astrid Calderas
▪ Claudia Cristerna
▪ Edie Harmon
▪ John Hernandez
▪ Jose Flores
▪ Leticia Ibarra
▪ Arturo Medina
▪ Raul Navarro
▪ Anita Nicklen
▪ Frances Nicklen
▪ Vincent Orfiano
▪ Elizabeth Swerdfeger
▪ Bianka Velez
▪ Jose Luis Velez
▪ Carolina Villa
▪ Elizabeth Villa
▪ Patricia Zarate
▪ Juan Zarate
34
Contact us
California Environmental Health Tracking Program
Paul English, PhD, MPH
Michelle Wong, MPH
University of Washington
Edmund Seto, PhD
Comite Civico del Valle
Humberto Lugo
Luis Olmedo
ivanair.org
35