Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 19 OF 66

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Comparison of End-Tidal Breath CO (Carbon Monoxide) Estimates of COHb with Estimates Based on Exposure Profiles of Individuals in the Denver, Colorado and Washington, DC Area.
Author Wallace, L. A. ; Thomas, J. ; Mage, D. T. ;
CORP Author Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab., Research Triangle Park, NC. Data Management and Analysis Div. ;General Software Corp., Landover, MD.
Year Published 1984
Report Number EPA-600-D-84-194;
Stock Number PB84-229822
Additional Subjects Carbon monoxide ; Toxicity ; Air pollution ; Public health ; Field tests ; Exposure ; Hazardous materials ; Denver ; District of Columbia ; Concentration(Composition) ; Blood analysis ; Comparison ; Toxic substances ; Coburn Forster Kane equation
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB84-229822 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 06/23/1988
Collation 22p
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sponsored a field study of personal exposures to carbon monoxide (CO) in Washington, D.C., and Denver. CO concentrations in exhaled breath were measured in 837 nonsmoking adult residents of Washington and 454 nonsmoking adult residents of Denver between November 8, 1982, and February 25, 1983. The percent of people exceeding 10 ppm (about 2% COHb saturation) was 10% in Denver and 5% in Washington. Mean (+ or - S.E.) breath concentrations were 7.2 + or - 0.2 ppm in Denver and 5.1 + or - 0.2 ppm in Washington. These concentrations agreed well with a previous nationwide study of blood carboxyhemoglobin (NHANESII), but were higher than would be predicted from outdoor fixed stations. Comparisons of COHb estimated from breath measurements and COHb estimated by CO exposures and the Coburn-Forster-Kane (CFK) equation indicate a discrepancy, with the breath COHb tending towards higher estimates. Possible contributing factors to the discrepancy are uncertainties in published breath CO-blood COHb correlations, a tendency for the personal monitors to drift with time, and uncertainties in physiological function values used in the CFK equation.