Evaluation of a solid phase microextraction method for community-based monitoring of 1,3-butadiene and benzene in Houston, Texas

The Houston region is home to arguably the largest petrochemical and refining complex anywhere. The effluent of this complex includes many potentially hazardous compounds. Study of some of these compounds has led to recognition that a number of known and probable carcinogens are at elevated levels in ambient air. Two of these, benzene and 1,3-butadiene, have been found in concentrations which may pose health risk for residents of Houston.^ Recent popular journalism and publications by local research institutions has increased the interest of the public in Houston's air quality. Much of the literature has been critical of local regulatory agencies' oversight of industrial pollution. A number of citizens in the region have begun to volunteer with air quality advocacy groups in the testing of community air. Inexpensive methods exist for monitoring of ozone, particulate matter and airborne toxic ambient concentrations. This study is an evaluation of a technique that has been successfully applied to airborne toxics.^ This technique, solid phase microextraction (SPME), has been used to measure airborne volatile organic hydrocarbons at community-level concentrations. It is has yielded accurate and rapid concentration estimates at a relatively low cost per sample. Examples of its application to measurement of airborne benzene exist in the literature. None have been found for airborne 1,3-butadiene. These compounds were selected for an evaluation of SPME as a community-deployed technique, to replicate previous application to benzene, to expand application to 1,3-butadiene and due to the salience of these compounds in this community. ^ This study demonstrates that SPME is a useful technique for quantification of 1,3-butadiene at concentrations observed in Houston. Laboratory background levels precluded recommendation of the technique for benzene. One type of SPME fiber, 85 μm Carboxen/PDMS, was found to be a sensitive sampling device for 1,3-butadiene under temperature and humidity conditions common in Houston. This study indicates that these variables affect instrument response. This suggests the necessity of calibration within specific conditions of these variables. While deployment of this technique was less expensive than other methods of quantification of 1,3-butadiene, the complexity of calibration may exclude an SPME method from broad deployment by community groups.^

A practice-based culminating experience: Writing a HRSA grant application with Texas Organ Sharing Alliance for public education efforts to increase solid organ donation

In November 2010, nearly 110,000 people in the United States were waiting for organs for transplantation. Despite the fact that the organ donor registration rate has doubled in the last year, Texas has the lowest registration rate in the nation. Due to the need for improved registration rates in Texas, this practice-based culminating experience was to write an application for federal funding for the central Texas organ procurement organization, Texas Organ Sharing Alliance. The culminating experience has two levels of significance for public health – (1) to engage in an activity to promote organ donation registration, and (2) to provide professional experience in grant writing. ^ The process began with a literature review. The review was to identify successful intervention activities in motivating organ donation registration that could be used in intervention design for the grant application. Conclusions derived from the literature review included (1) the need to specifically encourage family discussions, (2) religious and community leaders can be leveraged to facilitate organ donation conversations in families, (3) communication content must be culturally sensitive and (4) ethnic disparities in transplantation must be acknowledged and discussed.^ Post the literature review; the experience followed a five step process of developing the grant application. The steps included securing permission to proceed, assembling a project team, creation of a project plan and timeline, writing each element of the grant application including the design of proposed intervention activities, and completion of the federal grant application. ^ After the grant application was written, an evaluation of the grant writing process was conducted. Opportunities for improvement were identified. The first opportunity was the need for better timeline management to allow for review of the application by an independent party, iterative development of the budget proposal, and development of collaborative partnerships. Another improvement opportunity was the management of conflict regarding the design of the intervention that stemmed from marketing versus evidence-based approaches. The most important improvement opportunity was the need to develop a more exhaustive evaluation plan.^ Eight supplementary files are attached to appendices: Feasibility Discussion in Appendix 1, Grant Guidance and Workshop Notes in Appendix 2, Presentation to Texas Organ Sharing Alliance in Appendix 3, Team Recruitment Presentation in Appendix 5, Grant Project Narrative in Appendix 7, Federal Application Form in Appendix 8, and Budget Workbook with Budget Narrative in Appendix 9.^