Assessing the national capacity for disaster research response (DR2) within the NIEHS Environmental Health Sciences Core Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Disaster research response (DR2) is necessary to answer scientific questions about the environmental health impacts of disasters and the effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. This research explores the preparedness and capacity of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) P30 Core Centers (CCs) to conduct DR2 and engage with communities in the context of disasters. METHODS: In early 2018, we conducted an online survey of CC Directors (n = 16, 69.5% response rate) to identify their DR2 relevant scientific assets, capabilities, and activities. Summary statistics were calculated. We also conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 (69.5%) CC Community Engagement Core directors to identify facilitators and barriers of DR2 community engagement. Interview notes were coded and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Survey: While 56% of responding CCs reported prior participation in DR2 and preparedness to repurpose funding to support DR2, less than one third reported development of a disaster-specific data collection protocol, deployment plan, or concept of operations plan, participation in an exercise to test DR2 capacity, development of academic partnerships to conduct DR2, development of a process for fast-tracking institutional review board approvals for DR2, or maintenance of formal agreements with state, local, or community-based partner(s). A number of CCs reported developing or considering developing capacity in these areas. Barriers to, and tools and resources to enhance, CC engagement in DR2 were identified. Interviews: Four key components for community engaged DR2 were identified: pre-existing community relationships, responsive research that benefits communities, coordination among researchers, and coordination with community response partners. Several roles for, benefits of, and barriers to Community Engagement Rapid Response Teams (CERRT) were described. CONCLUSIONS: CCs have significant scientific assets and community partnerships that can be leveraged for DR2; however, additional planning is necessary to ensure that these scientific assets and community partnerships are leveraged when disasters strike.

Community airborne particulate matter from mining for sand used as hydraulic fracturing proppant.

Field and laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate the impact of proppant sand mining and processing activities on community particulate matter (PM) concentrations. In field studies outside 17 homes within 800m of sand mining activities (mining, processing, and transport), respirable (PM4) crystalline silica concentrations were low (<0.4µg/m3) with crystalline silica detected on 7 samples (2% to 4% of mass). In long-term monitoring at 6 homes within 800m of sand mining activities, the highest daily mean PM concentrations observed were 14.5µg/m3 for PM2.5 and 37.3µg/m3 for PM10, although infrequent (<3% of time), short-term elevated PM concentrations occurred when wind blew over the facility. In laboratory studies, aerosolized sand was shown to produce respirable-sized particles, containing 6% to 19% crystalline silica. Dispersion modeling of a mine and processing facility indicated that PM10 can exceed standards short distances (<40m) beyond property lines. Lastly, fence-line PM and crystalline silica concentrations reported to state agencies were substantially below regulatory or guideline values, although several excursions were observed for PM10 when winds blew over the facility. Taken together, community exposures to airborne particulate matter from proppant sand mining activities at sites similar to these appear to be unlikely to cause chronic adverse health conditions.