- UCAR Home
- About Us
- For Staff
December 18, 2008 | Ground-level ozone, an air pollutant that is monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), damages human health by irritating the respiratory system, reducing lung function, damaging lung cells, and aggravating asthma and other chronic conditions. In March 2008, the EPA strengthened ozone standards by lowering acceptable limits from 84 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.
NCAR postdoctoral researcher Yongku Kim is using epidemiologic data to study the effects of ozone regulation on human health. He’s leading an assessment of how various regulatory standards for ozone may affect non-accidental mortality, including respiratory-related deaths during ozone season. The assessment uses statistical methods based on hierarchical Bayesian models to predict the potential effects of the different regulatory standards. It also analyzes the variability of the results and how they are impacted by different modeling assumptions. Although other papers have detailed the relationship between ozone and human mortality, Kim's assessment is unique for its technical and statistical approach to assessing the relationship between new ozone regulations and mortality.
Kim’s research shows a statistical correlation between ozone regulations and mortality, with lower limits of acceptable ozone linked to a decrease in deaths. His projections show that, if levels were decreased to 70 parts per billion, mortality would decrease by approximately 1.40–2.78 deaths per 1,000 total deaths; if levels were reduced further to 60 parts per billion, a reduction of approximately 2.50–4.81 deaths per 1,000 total deaths would be expected.
“The mortality reduction is clear,” Kim says. “Policymakers can use this output to make decisions.”
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.