1. Introduction Purpose Acknowledgments  Environmental Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire  o Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a popular method for extracting natural gas from shale deposits below the earth’s crust. (7,8,9) o The geology of Wisconsin has optimal sand deposits for the process. (7,9) o The number of frac sand mines in WI has greatly increased in recent years. (see figure 7) o Over 110 permitted frac sand mines & processing plants are located in Wisconsin. (See figure 1) (3,7) o Frac sand is used during extraction as a proppant to hold open the fractured shale during removal of natural gas (3). o Crystalline silica & other small particulate matter have been shown to be a concern for health. (1,4,5) o “Freshly-fractured” silica appears to be 2 to 5 times more reactive with animal lung tissue than “weathered” silica, though weathering occurs within several days & with exposure to water. (5) o Numerous reports of dust accumulation at people’s homes & businesses have led to an increased need to investigating air quality surrounding those frac sand facilities. (3) o Quantitatively characterize the PM 2.5 & PM 10 particulate concentrations in the air around frac sand facilities & evaluate the risk as compared to national standards. PM2.5 Airborne Particulates Near Frac Sand Operations References Methods o 24-Hour ambient air samples were collected with an SKC DPS sampler using the PM 2.5 sampling head. o Sampling was conducted near mining sites using the DPS, TSI DustTrak™ I 8520, and the TSI DustTrak™ II 8530 and compared to local monitors, if available. o Sampling was conducted on the top of the research building and in the lab using the Andersen dichotomous sampler, DPS, TSI DustTrak™ I 8520, and the TSI DustTrak™ II 8530. o PVC filters were weighed pre- & post-exposure 6 times using a Mettler Toledo AT261 DeltaRange® balance for the DPS and the Andersen sampler. o The PM 2.5 sample inlet was mounted 2 m high, away from buildings & trees, as described in EPA sampling protocol. o Temperature, humidity, wind speed, wind direction, & GPS coordinates were also recorded at each site. Jonathan Jilek; Kristen‎ Walters; Alayna Spengler ; Bethany Valentine;‎ Jennifer ‎Schmitz; Christopher Conrad‎; Zachary‎ Kroening; Ian Wetzel‎; Cory White‎; and Jonathan Dahlen (UW-Stout)‎, Dr. Crispin Pierce, Professor Environmental Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. o Elevated levels of PM 2.5 during active frac sand mining & processing operations. (see figure 3) o consistent with our findings using a TSI DustTrak™ 8520 aerosol monitor (a battery-operated, portable light-scattering laser photometer) used extensively in particulate measurement. o Future research with federal-reference Andersen dichotomous sampler & direct reading instruments o Provide testing options for local health departments using less expensive instruments. o Health departments & elected officials face questions about health risks associated with frac sand mining. o More research needed to make informed decisions regarding policy making & when creating regulations. Conclusions & Recommendations o PM 2.5 levels during the five sampling events ranged from 5.82–50.8 µg/m 3. (see figure 2) o Monitoring of PM 2.5 conducted in a controlled environment with multiple devices showed results of between 5-17.74 µg/m 3. (see figure 3) o Monitors from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in Winona, MN showed similar results to our data. (see figure 4 & 5) o Levels of PM 2.5 affected by precipitation, wind speed, & degree of frac sand facility activity. Results Figure 1: WI map of frac sand site. (6) Figure 6: Photo of Superior Silica Sand mine in Bloomer, WI on November 5, 2011. (2) Figure 7: The increase in frac sand production in WI from 1975-2011. (6) Thank you to the UW-Eau Claire Office of Research & Sponsored Programs for funding this project & the office of Learning & Technology Services for printing this poster. 1.Health effects of occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica. (April 2002). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-129/ 2.Kenosian, M. (2014) Photo Board, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Environmental Public health. Retrieved from http://www.uwec.edu/Watershed/enph/silica/PhotoGallery.htm 3.Pierce, C. (April 2014). PM 2.5 Airborne Particulates near Frac Sand Operations. [Word Document]. 4.Pope, C.A., Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., & Thurston, G.D. (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 1132-1141. doi:10.1001/jama.287.9.1132. 5.Vallyathan, V., Castranova, V., Pack, D., Leonard, S., Shumaker, J., Hubbs, A.F., Shoemaker, D.A., Ramsey, D.M., Pretty, J.R., McLaurin, J.L., et al. (1995). Freshly fractured quartz inhalation leads to enhanced injury and inflammation. Potential role of freeradicals. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 152(3), 1003- 9. 6.Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. (2013). Frac sand mines and plants, October 2013 update [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/wi-frac-sand/ 7.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2011). Report to the Natural Resources Board: Silica Study, August 2011, AM-407. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/am/am407.pdf. 8.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2012). Silica sand mining in Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/documents/SilicaSandMiningFinal.pdf 9.Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, University of Wisconsin–Extension. (2013). Frac sand in Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/frac-sand-factsheet.pdf Figure 8: Jennifer Scmidtz, Jon Jilek, Alayna Spangler, & Kristen Walters; part of the current research team testing our new Andersen dichotomous samplers & the DPS. Figure 3: A calculated average of PM 2.5 concentrations were taken in a controlled environment in HSS 218 Research Lab at UW- Eau Claire. Standard deviations (S.D.) were not used for instruments DustTrak I and II. DPS displayed a S.D. of +/- 3.74 and Dichot displayed a S.D. of +/- 1.23. (3) Figure 4: A calculated average of PM 2.5 concentrations were taken near an active frac sand site in Winona, MN. Data from the DustTrack I and DustTrack II compared to data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. monitor located in Winona, MN (MPCA). MPCA reported 5 µg/m 3, DustTrack I displayed 9.8±0.84 µg/m 3, DustTrack II displayed 4.6±0.55. (3) Figure 5: A calculated average of PM 2.5 concentrations were taken near an active frac sand site in Winona, MN. Data from the DPS compared to data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency monitor located in Winona, MN (MPCA).The MPCA reported 13.4±4.0 µg/m 3. The DPS displayed 19.7±1.7 µg/m 3.(3) Figure 2: Locations & Measured PM 2.5 concentrations near frac sand mining & processing sites. Results with S.D. were calculated as: Bridge Creek 13.8+/- 6.79 µg/m 3,Arcadia 13.8+/- 6.79 µg/m 3, New Auburn 50.8+/-9.48 µg/m 3, New Auburn 23.6+/-3.16 µg/m 3, Winona 19.6+/-1.74 µg/m 3. (3) US EPA annual PM 2.5 standard of 12 µg/m 3