Describes the health consequences associated with each criteria pollutant, any sensitive populations, and identifies when standards were last reviewed and/or changed.

Ambient air quality is one aspect of the environment that is not modifiable for many people. Everyone breathes, and it is often not possible to avoid polluted air. Laws protecting against harmful levels of outdoor air pollutants have been developed to mitigate exposures. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) website describes the six criteria pollutants regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. The NAAQS site Describes the health consequences associated with each criteria pollutant, any sensitive populations, and identifies when standards were last reviewed and/or changed. As you review the site, note the terminology surrounding ambient air quality and regulation of pollutants, such as primary and secondary standards, attainment, and implementation.

For this Assignment, use the Air Quality Standards worksheet. You will evaluate health consequences relating to air pollution, determine how air quality is monitored, discriminate between air quality standards, and assess the rationale behind them. As you complete the Assignment, ponder whether air quality standards really are standard.

Use the rubric embedded in the Air Quality Standards Worksheet to assess this Assignment.

o Air Quality Standards Worksheet (Word document)

o Module 3 Discussion Rubric (Word document)

o United States Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA). (1991). Indoor air facts No. 4 (revised): Sick building syndrome. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/iaq/pdfs/sick_building_factsheet.pdf

o United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

o World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Air pollution. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/

o Document: Air Quality Standards Worksheet (Word document)

o Document: Module 3 Discussion Rubric (Word document)

Module 3 Air Quality Standards Worksheet and Rubric

Student Name:

Timeliness

Fully Met

Partially Met/Good Partially Met/Fair Not Met

Timeliness Indicators Posted by the deadline Posted 1 day late Posted 2–4 days late Posted 5 or more days late

Grade Impact No impact 10% reduction in overall assignment score 20% reduction in overall assignment score 0 points

Part 1: NAAQS Quiz (Short answer)

Go to EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards website homepage at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Review the details of NAAQS for the criteria pollutants and answer the following questions:

Question (5 points each) Response Score

How many criteria pollutants are covered under the NAAQS?

In what year was the ozone standard first initiated?

For which pollutant has the standard been most recently strengthened?

Over what period of time are lead measurements made to assess meeting the standard?

What human health effect is associated with exposure to carbon monoxide?

List the top two sources of sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S.

Define a “non-attainment” area with respect to the NAAQS.

For which regions of the U.S. is attainment of PM10 a particular problem?

Instructor comments:

Total Score

(40 possible points)

Part 2: Choosing national air quality priorities (short essay answer)

Review the background information on each of the pollutants covered under the NAAQS and, based on the available information and considering the questions you addressed above, indicate which ambient air pollutant you believe should be a national regulatory priority for the United States and why. Support your choice by describing the types of health consequences associated with the pollutant (including any susceptible populations), its major sources, and when the standards were last reviewed and/or changed. Then, provide a brief explanation of one or more global implications for regulation of this pollutant by the United States. Be sure to cite your sources.

Response:

Score (20 possible points):

Instructor comments:

Quality Indicators Fully Met

Partially Met/Good Partially Met/Fair Not Met

Content Quality

(20 points) Choice of regulatory priority was fully supported with quantitative data on health consequences, major sources of the choice pollutant, and when standards were last reviewed/changed

AND

Global implications of U.S. regulation of the pollutant were clearly discussed

AND

Data sources were referenced and highly appropriate to support the choice and discussion

(20 points) One of the following expected criteria was not clearly discussed: health consequences, major source, when standards were last reviewed, or global implications.

AND/OR

Choice was mostly but not fully supported with quantitative data and references

AND/OR

Writing was a little unclear (typos, minor issues)

(16–19 points)

Two of the following expected criteria were not clearly discussed: health consequences, major source, when standards were last reviewed, or global implications.

AND/OR

Choice was not well supported with quantitative data and references

AND/OR

Writing was unclear (frequent typos, grammatical errors)

(14–15 points)

The pollutant choice was not a pollutant regulated under the NAAQS

AND/OR

Three or more of the following expected criteria were not clearly discussed: health consequences, major source, when standards were last reviewed, or global implications

AND/OR

Choice was not supported with quantitative data and references

(0–13 points)

Part 3: Identify Which Pollutants Significantly Contribute to These Issues

Although many pollutants get a bad reputation, certain types of gas emissions contribute more to specific environmental issues. Review section 4.1 in your text and the background information on each of the pollutants covered under the NAAQS. Choose from among the eight pollutants below and fill in the name of the correct pollutant in the grid below.

chlorofluorocarbons particulate matter dioxins nitrogen dioxide

carbon monoxide sulfur dioxide ozone carbon dioxide

Pollutant Global warming Ozone layer depletion Acid deposition Score

Response (5 points)

yes no no

Response (5 points)

yes yes no

Response (5 points)

no no yes

Instructor Comments:

Total Score

(15 possible points)

Final Score:

Part 1 Score (40 possible points)

Part 2 Score (20 possible points)

Part 3 Score (15 possible points)

Total Score (75 possible points)

Instructor comments (Timeliness):

Timeliness Factor (late points deducted):

THIS IS THE Rubric

Timeliness On Time Late Missing Post(s)

Timeliness Indicators All internal and final deadlines for Discussion were met

One or more required deadlines missed

(No postings allowed after the last day of the module) One or more required Discussion posts missing

(No postings allowed after the last day of the module)

Grade Impact No impact 10% reduction in overall Discussion score per day for each late required post up to last day of the module) 30% reduction in overall Discussion score for each missing required post

No participation=0 points

Discussion Indicators Excellent

Above Average

Average

Fair

Poor

Score

Communication Quality and Clarity

12 Possible Points

Professional, appropriate, and clear communication, with completely correct spelling and sentence structure

AND

Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source

(12 points) Appropriate and clear communication, with infrequent minor spelling errors

AND

Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source

(10–11 points) Writing sometimes not clear

and/or occasional minor spelling or sentence structure errors that somewhat detracted from professional appearance

AND/OR

Statements normally requiring references or citations were validated with the source

(9 points) Writing often not clear, or contained frequent spelling or sentence structure errors that detracted from professional appearance

AND/OR

Statements normally requiring references or citations were sometimes not validated with the source

(7–8 points) Communications were not professional, or not appropriate, or

writing frequently unclear and difficult to follow

AND/OR

Statements normally requiring references or citations were frequently not validated with the source

(0–6 points)

Content

12 Possible Points

All contributions were fully relevant to the journal article topic

(12 points) Most contributions were relevant to the journal article topic and digressions did not detract from the conversation

(10–11 points) Contributions were occasionally vague or off topic, or with slightly distracting digressions

(9 points) Contributions were often not relevant to the journal article topic, too vague, or rambled so that the point was difficult to find

(7–8 points) Contributions were frequently off topic or very vague

(0–6 points)

Uniqueness and Depth

12 Possible Points

Articles were critiqued with highly insightful, thought provoking, and original analysis and interpretation, with all contributions of substantial depth

(12 points) Articles were critiqued with insightful and original analysis and interpretation, with most contributions in-depth

(10–11 points) Articles were discussed, but with limited depth, insight, or not always demonstrating original interpretations

(9 points) Ideas and comments were often not in-depth or original (e.g., reliance on “I agree” statements without follow up)

(7–8 points) Ideas and comments were frequently superficial, shallow, or lacking in originality

(0–6 points)

Engagement and Community Response

12 Possible Points

Postings were always designed to engage others and often stimulated multiple peer responses that furthered the discussion

AND

Strong follow up with peer questions/

comments, demonstrating a true scholarly conversation

(12 points) Postings were designed to engage others and usually stimulated peer responses that furthered the discussion

AND

Good follow up to peer questions/

comments, demonstrating a good conversational flow

(10–11 points) Postings were sometimes not designed to engage others or further the discussion

AND/OR

Sometimes no follow up responses to peer questions/

comments, somewhat inhibiting a good conversational flow

(9 points) Postings often were not designed to engage others or further the discussion

AND/OR

Often no follow up responses to peer questions/

comments, limiting meaningful conversational flow

(7–8 points) Postings were not designed to engage others or further the discussion

AND/OR

No follow up responses posted to peer questions/

comments, leading to little or no meaningful conversational flow

(0–6 points)

Critical Thinking and Analysis

12 Possible Points

Analysis of articles always demonstrated critical thinking.

Specifically,

Strong reliance on facts and validated opinions. Multiple perspectives were considered. Points were always well supported and based on scholarly evidence. Arguments were coherent, organized, and logical. Connections were frequently made between ideas, and conclusions always flowed from evidence.

AND

Contributions always included well-chosen resources that supported and extended the discussion

(12 points) Analysis of articles usually demonstrated critical thinking.

Specifically,

Reliance on facts and validated opinions. Multiple perspectives were usually considered. Points were usually well supported and based on scholarly evidence. Arguments were usually coherent, organized, and logical. Connections were made between ideas, and conclusions flowed from evidence.

AND

Resources frequently supported and extended the discussion

(10–11 points) Some analysis of articles with an occasional deficiency of one or two areas of critical thinking.

Specifically,

Occasional reliance on assumptions and unsubstantiated opinions rather than facts, or occasionally only one view point considered, or occasional use of less scholarly or less appropriate resources, or sometimes unorganized or less logical arguments, or some lack of connection between ideas, or conclusions occasionally did not flow from the evidence.

AND/OR

Resources sometimes did not support and extend the discussion

(9 points) Limited analysis of the articles, with a deficiency of several areas of critical thinking or frequent issues in one area.

Specifically,

Reliance on assumptions and unsubstantiated opinions rather than facts, usually only one view point considered, frequently used less scholarly or less appropriate resources, frequently incoherent, disorganized, or illogical arguments, often a lack of connection between ideas, or conclusions often did not flow from the evidence

AND/OR

Resources frequently did not support and extend the discussion

(7–8 points) Articles were not analyzed and/or critical thinking was not demonstrated

AND/OR

Contributions did not include resources that supported and extended the discussion or were not of appropriate quality or not supportive of the points being made

(0–6 points)

Initial Score (60 possible points):

Instructor comments:

Instructor comments (Timeliness):

Timeliness Factor (late points deducted):

Total Score (60 possible points):

Unlike most other websites we deliver what we promise;

  • Our Support Staff are online 24/7
  • Our Writers are available 24/7
  • Most Urgent order is delivered with 6 Hrs
  • 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.

GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: