The location of majority and minority populations with respect to commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in Texas

There is a growing interest in the location of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSDF) sites in relation to minority communities. A number of studies have been completed, and the results of these studies have been varied. Some of the studies have shown a strong positive correlation between the location of TSDF sites and minority populations, while a few have shown no significance in that relationship. The major difference between these studies has been in the areal unit used.^ This study compared the minority populations of Texas census tracts and ZIP codes containing a TSDF using the associated county as the comparison population. The hypothesis of this study was that there was no difference between using census tracts and ZIP codes to analyze the relationship of minority populations and TSDF's. The census data used was from 1990, and the initial list of TSDF sites was supplied by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The TSDF site locations were checked using graphical information systems (GIS) programs, in order to increase the accuracy of the identity of exposed ZIP codes and census tracts. The minority populations of the exposed areal units were compared using proportional differences, crosstables, maps, and logistic regression. The dependent variable used was the exposure status of the areal units under study, including counties, census tracts, and ZIP codes. The independent variables used included minority group proportion and grouping of the proportions, educational status, household income, and home value.^ In all cases, education was significant or near significant at the.05 level. Education rather than minority proportion was therefore the most significant predictor of the exposure status of a census tract or ZIP code. ^

Use of light intensity, temperature, and humidity to verify exposure location

Research studies on the association between exposures to air contaminants and disease frequently use worn dosimeters to measure the concentration of the contaminant of interest. But investigation of exposure determinants requires additional knowledge beyond concentration, i.e., knowledge about personal activity such as whether the exposure occurred in a building or outdoors. Current studies frequently depend upon manual activity logging to record location. This study's purpose was to evaluate the use of a worn data logger recording three environmental parameters—temperature, humidity, and light intensity—as well as time of day, to determine indoor or outdoor location, with an ultimate aim of eliminating the need to manually log location or at least providing a method to verify such logs. For this study, data collection was limited to a single geographical area (Houston, Texas metropolitan area) during a single season (winter) using a HOBO H8 four-channel data logger. Data for development of a Location Model were collected using the logger for deliberate sampling of programmed activities in outdoor, building, and vehicle locations at various times of day. The Model was developed by analyzing the distributions of environmental parameters by location and time to establish a prioritized set of cut points for assessing locations. The final Model consisted of four "processors" that varied these priorities and cut points. Data to evaluate the Model were collected by wearing the logger during "typical days" while maintaining a location log. The Model was tested by feeding the typical day data into each processor and generating assessed locations for each record. These assessed locations were then compared with true locations recorded in the manual log to determine accurate versus erroneous assessments. The utility of each processor was evaluated by calculating overall error rates across all times of day, and calculating individual error rates by time of day. Unfortunately, the error rates were large, such that there would be no benefit in using the Model. Another analysis in which assessed locations were classified as either indoor (including both building and vehicle) or outdoor yielded slightly lower error rates that still precluded any benefit of the Model's use.^