This paper assesses whether the Clean Air Act and its Amendments have been equally successful in ensuring the right to healthful air quality in both advantaged and disadvantaged communities in the United States. Using a method to rank air quality established by the American Lung Association in its 2009 State of the Air report along with EPA air quality data, we assess the environmental justice dimensions of air pollution exposure and access to air quality information in the United States. We focus on the race, age, and poverty demographics of communities with differing levels of ozone and particulate matter exposure, as well as communities with and without air quality information. Focusing on PM2.5 and ozone, we find that within areas covered by the monitoring networks, non-Hispanic blacks are consistently overrepresented in communities with the poorest air quality. The results for older and younger age as well as poverty vary by the pollution metric under consideration. Rural areas are typically outside the bounds of air quality monitoring networks leaving large segments of the population without information about their ambient air quality. These results suggest that substantial areas of the United States lack monitoring data, and among areas where monitoring data are available, low income and minority communities tend to experience higher ambient pollution levels.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies face a number of challenges in interpreting and reconciling short-duration (seconds to minutes) readings from mobile and handheld air sensors with the longer duration averages (hours to days) associated with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants-particulate matter (PM), ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. Similar issues are equally relevant to the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) where chemical-specific health effect reference values are the best indicators of exposure limits; values which are often based on a lifetime of continuous exposure. A multi-agency, staff-level Air Sensors Health Group (ASHG) was convened in 2013. ASHG represents a multi-institutional collaboration of Federal agencies devoted to discovery and discussion of sensor technologies, interpretation of sensor data, defining the state of sensor-related science across each institution, and provides consultation on how sensors might effectively be used to meet a wide range of research and decision support needs. ASHG focuses on several fronts: improving the understanding of what hand-held sensor technologies may be able to deliver; communicating what hand-held sensor readings can provide to a number of audiences; the challenges of how to integrate data generated by multiple entities using new and unproven technologies; and defining best practices in communicating health-related messages to various audiences. This review summarizes the challenges, successes, and promising tools of those initial ASHG efforts and Federal agency progress on crafting similar products for use with other NAAQS pollutants and the HAPs. NOTE: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessary represent the opinions of their Federal Agencies or the US Government. Mention of product names does not constitute endorsement.

Previous studies in mice have demonstrated differing immunoprophylactic activity of antisera against rough mutants of Enterobacteriaceae in the prevention of lethal gram-negative bacteremia. In this study, in which CF1 mice were made bacteremic with a serum-resistant Escherichia coli 06:K2:H1, the composite survival was significantly (p less than 0.001) enhanced by i. v. pre-treatment one to two hours before injection with either normal rabbit sera or antisera to the J5 mutant of E. coli 0111. The protective efficacy of these preimmune and hyperimmune sera did not differ significantly. Since considerable variability in the mortality of control mice occurred in the 25 separate experiments, the results of individual experiments were grouped retrospectively according to survival in the individual control groups and compared for evidence of possible differences in the efficacy of these two sera. With the exception of a statistically significant difference in the efficacy in one group receiving an LD75-95 inoculum, no such differences were noted. Thus, the variable effects of a rough mutant antiserum were not explained by differences in the relative virulence in the inoculum. This study confirms earlier observations by others that the protective efficacy of the anti-J5 antisera in infected mice does not differ appreciably from that of normal rabbit sera, provided the same donor rabbits are the source of both preimmune and hyperimmune sera.