RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Employers, courts, and the general public judge the credibility of professionals based on credentials such as academic degrees, publications, memberships in professional organizations, board certifications, and professional registrations. However, the relevance and merit of these credentials can be difficult to determine objectively. Board certification can be a reliable indicator of proficiency if the certifying organization demonstrates, through regularly scheduled independent review, that its processes meet established standards and when a certificate holder is required to periodically demonstrate command of a body of knowledge that is essential to current professional practice. OBJECTIVE: We report herein a current Standard of Knowledge in general toxicology compiled from the experience and opinions of 889 certified practicing professional toxicologists. DISCUSSION: An examination is the most commonly used instrument for testing a certification candidate's command of the body of knowledge. However, an examination-based certification is only creditable when the body of knowledge, to which a certification examination tests, is representative of the current knowledge, skills, and capabilities needed to effectively practice at the professional level. Thus, that body of knowledge must be the current "Standard of Knowledge" for the profession, compiled in a transparent fashion from current practitioners of the profession. CONCLUSION: This work was conducted toward ensuring the scientific integrity of the products produced by professional toxicologists.