California Air Resources Board

Background

In regions like California's San Joaquin Valley (SJV), pesticide use for crop protection is common. Communities near intensive agricultural operations have the potential for pesticide exposure, which could have damaging effects on human health. Pesticides and fumigants used in this region include organophosphates (e.g., chlorpyrifos), carbamates (e.g., carbaryl), pyrethroids (e.g., permethrin), and fumigants such as methyl bromide (phased out but replaced by others like chloropicrin and 1,3-dichloropropene [1,3-D]). These substances can cause a range of acute and chronic health issues, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, respiratory issues, and long-term impacts such as developmental delays, cognitive deficits, cancer, and neurological disorders. The exposure risk is a particular concern for vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women, and seniors.

Our understanding of the extent of pesticide exposure and its health effects currently relies on environmental and biological monitoring techniques. Air monitoring can be used to detect pesticides in the atmosphere, particularly during or after pesticide applications. This can be done with passive samplers that collect airborne pesticides over extended periods or with active air sampling methods that involve pumping air through sorbent media to collect pesticide residues or by collecting whole air into canisters. While effective in measuring off-site movement of pesticides, air monitoring limitations include temporal and spatial variability, as ambient concentrations fluctuate based on factors such as wind, temperature, and application practices. Additionally, fumigants like chloropicrin and 1,3-D, which are gases, present challenges for monitoring design because they can rapidly disperse over large areas, potentially affecting distant communities that may not be directly adjacent to agricultural fields. Dispersion also reduces the concentrations of these gases and pushes against the detection limits of even the most sensitive mass spectroscopy systems. Currently, most commercial labs follow the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) method, utilizing canister samplers and gas-chromatography mass-spectrometer (GC-MS) for pesticide analysis. These methods are expensive and not necessarily encompassing. As a result, it becomes cost-prohibitive to implement pesticide monitoring strategies and for commercial labs to accept pesticide samples. However, other supplemental approaches, such as air dispersion modeling tools (AERMOD, DPR's AERFUM, CalPuff, SciPuff, etc.), can estimate the off-site movement of pesticides and replicate monitoring data fairly well.

Despite the availability of these monitoring tools, there are significant limitations that hinder our ability to fully understand the community's potential pesticide exposure risks. The temporal and spatial variability of pesticide application makes it difficult to track ambient concentrations in real-time. Furthermore, pesticides are not always used in isolation, and the cumulative effect of exposure to multiple chemicals remains poorly understood. Pesticides may also degrade into other toxic compounds, and the interactions between different pesticides or between pesticides and environmental factors complicate the assessment of their combined effects on health.

Given these limitations, a more advanced, accurate, and comprehensive approach is needed to measure and understand pesticide and fumigant exposure in affected communities. Deploying more effective near-real-time monitoring technologies could provide individuals and communities with immediate feedback on their exposure levels, allowing for more targeted public health interventions. Developing a more accurate, comprehensive, and cost-effective method to collect air samples that enhances the comprehensiveness of the U.S. EPA methods can expand the community's ability to obtain pertinent air quality data to inform their communities. Additionally, better integrating environmental, biological, and health data through advanced analytics such as air dispersion and machine learning models could help build a complete picture of exposure risks near and far from the application area. By improving our ability to measure and quantify pesticide usage and exposure potential, we can better understand its public health impacts and inform policies.

This project will evaluate the connections between agricultural operations, air quality, and community exposure risks. This project will develop a visualization tool that shows temporally and spatially resolved pesticide and fumigant usage in the State, a synthesized report on existing pesticide and fumigant monitoring and analytical techniques, and a new cost-effective Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for detecting multiple pesticides and fumigants to evaluate community exposure risks in California. Furthermore, this project will work with a community to test the new SOP at [a] selected location[s] within the SJV to demonstrate its efficacy and begin evaluating potential exposure risks in communities using air dispersion modeling. Partnerships with Community-Based Organizations (CBO) are highly desirable. If successful, consideration would be given to follow-on phases including additional field testing in communities.

Objective

The goal of this project is to develop 1) a visualization tool that shows temporally and spatially resolved pesticide and fumigant usage in the State, 2) a synthesized report on existing pesticide and fumigant monitoring and analytical techniques, and 3) a new cost-effective (SOP) for detecting multiple pesticides and fumigants for evaluating community exposure risks in California. Furthermore, the contractor will 4) work with a community to field and laboratory test the new SOP at [a] selected location[s] within the SJV to demonstrate its efficacy and 5) begin evaluating potential exposure risks using air dispersion modeling

Scope of Work

The contractor should create a fully developed research plan and perform all tasks described below.

Task 1: Visualization Tool – Temporally and Spatially Resolved Pesticide and Fumigant Usage in the State

The contractor shall evaluate the California Pesticide Information Portal Project managed by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and synthesize all data in the Pesticide Use Reporting Data Source (PUR) into a visualization tool (e.g., ArcGIS Dashboard, ArcGIS StoryMap) that visually communicates the pesticide and fumigant usage data for all regions in the State dating back a minimum of five years. Such a tool shall reflect the usage data at its highest spatial resolution available in the Public Land Survey System. The contractor shall also include information on crop type, applied chemicals (amount and compound), and applied area, among other data available in PUR. The contractor shall further evaluate publicly available databases (e.g., U.S. EPA), literature data, and other pertinent sources of information and include CARB and community-relevant, summarized data in the visualization tool. At the end of the contract, CARB staff must be trained on and provided full control of the tool, including associated data files, to allow staff to make future modifications and maintain future updates. The user shall be able to select a community and understand exactly the pesticide/fumigants used within its vicinity. The visualization tool should also display trends by chemicals, applied amounts relative to the regional- and state-level averages (including statistics), summary of crop types, among other data determined through communication with CARB staff and research partners. The contractor must also develop a User Guide for the tool.

Interim Deliverable

A visualization tool (e.g., ArcGIS Dashboard, ArcGIS StoryMap) that displays temporally and spatially resolved pesticide and fumigant usage data from PUR. This tool can select and obtain information relevant to communities located adjacent to intensive agricultural operations. Visualization Tool User Guide.

Task 2: Literature Review – Existing Monitoring and Analytical Techniques

The contractor will conduct a literature review that evaluates existing methods to sample/monitor and detect (i.e., analytical techniques) pesticides and fumigants in the air. The synthesized report summarizing the literature review will include the type of air samplers and absorbents/adsorbents; air sampling volume and collection time; recommendations on air measurement and air sample collection methodologies; cost of sampling; analytical procedures and detection limits; cost of laboratory analysis; data processing; and data analysis and interpretation strategies; among other information necessary to fully understand the existing approaches for studying pesticide and fumigant in the air at the farm and in downwind communities. The report must include information about the limitations of various sampling and analytical methods. The documents to be reviewed will include published research articles, technical reports (e.g., from DPR, U.S. EPA), pesticide registration databases, laboratory SOPs, etc. All references must be cited and included in the report.

Interim Deliverable

A synthesized report summarizing the literature review of existing monitoring and analytical techniques for sampling/monitoring and detecting (i.e., analytical techniques) pesticides and fumigants in the air. Ensure that the content of the report is relevant for CARB, DPR, and research partners (e.g., CBO). Communicate and coordinate with CARB staff quarterly to gain feedback and guidance.

Task 3: Develop new air sampling and analytical procedures to simultaneously detect multiple pesticides relevant for community monitoring

Develop new air sampling and analytical procedures to simultaneously detect multiple pesticides/fumigants relevant for community monitoring. Given the temporal variability of pesticides, a method of collecting several samples per week while minimizing the need for on-site staff or reducing other required resources is desired. Connect this procedure to Task 2 and provide robust scientific and technical justification for this new approach. Leverage existing and well-vetted methods (e.g., real-time samplers/analyzers or portable sorbent tubes) where applicable. Consider cost-effectiveness, complexity in sample collection and handling, and accessibility to materials in developing this new method. A comprehensive sampling methodology and procedure will be developed based on the literature review, encompassing the selection of air sampler, sorbent materials, air collection durations, pesticide desorption techniques, gas chromatography (GC) column(s), mass spectrometer or other detectors, running parameters, etc. The new method will be compiled into [multiple] SOPs that the communities and commercial laboratories can use for sample collection and laboratory-based analyses. Test the SOPs in the laboratory, refine/parameterize minimum detection limits, and provide sensitivity analysis that demonstrates robust reproducibility. Document all relevant information necessary to replicate all tests. Duplicates, blanks, and QA/QC samples shall be included in the SOPs to reduce sampling uncertainty. CARB, DPR, and CBO must be consulted to develop a list of priority pesticides to be included in the SOP. Such a list may be created based on parameters such as use activities, chemical toxicity and volatility, community concerns, and methodological practicality. The specificity of the tasks may be refined through discussions with CARB, DPR, and CBO.

Interim Deliverable

Fully developed SOP(s) of new air sampling and analytical procedures to simultaneously detect multiple pesticides/fumigants relevant for community monitoring. The objective is to be able to cost-effectively and quantitatively retrieve ambient concentration data for a list of priority pesticides determined in consultation with CARB, DPR, and CBO. Multiple SOP(s) may be developed. Every new method must be fully parameterized, tested for detection limits, and include sensitivity analysis that demonstrates robust reproducibility. Provide all documents on sampling and testing procedures to CARB. The specificity of the tasks may be refined through discussions with CARB, DPR, and CBO.

Task 4: Conduct field and laboratory testing to demonstrate the efficacy of the new SOP(s)

The contractor shall engage and partner with a community/CBO to conduct field and laboratory tests of the new pesticide/fumigant sampling and analytical procedures to determine its efficacy. Such community coordination shall be established in close communication with CARB and DPR. The field studies will be conducted in coordination with communities located near agricultural fields in consultation with CARB, DPR, and CBO. Every new method must be fully parameterized, tested for detection limits, and include sensitivity analysis that demonstrates robust reproducibility. Deployment of supplemental equipment, such as sonic anemometers, is required to collect meteorological parameters for Task 5. Document environmental parameters (e.g., wind, temperature) and all activities during the field testing. The metrics evaluating the new sampling and analytical procedure will include its detection limit and cost-effectiveness. Provide a strategic plan for collecting, handling, and sending the samples to laboratories. The specificity of the tasks may be refined through discussions with CARB, DPR, and CBO.

Interim Deliverable

Field and laboratory testing results that demonstrate the efficacy of the SOP(s) and the robust reproducibility of the results. Refined SOP(s). The specificity of the tasks may be refined through discussions with CARB, DPR, and CBO.

Task 5: Determine potential exposure risks to pesticides and fumigants using air dispersion modeling

The contractor shall use the data gathered in Task 2, Task 4, and an air dispersion model (AERMOD, DPR's AERFUM, CalPuff, SciPuff, etc.) to determine the potential exposure risks to pesticides and fumigants in communities located adjacent to intensive agricultural operations in California. Generate emission/drift estimates for all pesticides of interest with considerations of application method. The contractor shall work with CARB and DPR to define the metrics used to compare exposure risks. The contractor shall corroborate the air dispersion model with air monitoring data collected in Task 4. The contractor shall prioritize communities with potential exposure risks in communication with CARB, DPR, and CBO. Analyze and interpret the data to give temporal context. Consider evaluating other air pollution sources to determine the relative exposure risks from pesticide and fumigant use.

Interim Deliverable

Prioritization of communities with potential exposure risks. Results from all air dispersion modeling with spatial and temporal context to potential exposure risks. Determination of the relative exposure risks from pesticide and fumigant use.

Task 6: Summary, evaluation, and final report

The contractor is expected to submit a comprehensive draft final report (DFR) to the CARB contract manager six months before the end of the project, detailing the research findings and their recommendations. The DFR shall have gone through technical editing before being submitted to CARB. This report should include a thorough analysis of the methods and data collected, along with actionable suggestions for future applications and studies. The contractor will revise the report based on feedback from CARB staff and the Research Screening Committee (RSC). By the end of the contract period, the contractor will deliver the final report and the finalized data collected during the study. To ensure transparency and accessibility, CARB will publish publicly available detailed project reports outlining the findings, methodologies, and their impacts on racial equity, ensuring accessibility for diverse audiences. In addition, interactive tools, webinars, and presentations can be conducted to share the findings of this project while demonstrating equity-centered metrics and highlighting the outcomes of this research.

Project Deliverables

The project proposal shall include but not be limited to the following deliverables:

At the Pre-Proposal Stage

• If applicable, provide a cultural competency statement in the pre-proposal.
• If applicable, provide a community engagement plan in the pre-proposal.

At the Beginning of the Contract

• Participate in a kick-off meeting to give an overview of the project.
• Start a discussion with CARB on possible field site locations, deployment strategies, and data collection approaches.
• All researchers must undergo cultural competency training (e.g., implicit bias training and racial equity training). Training should be completed or scheduled within 30 days of contract execution.

During the Active Contract Period

• Submit Quarterly Progress Reports. These reports shall include plain-language summaries that can be posted publicly. CARB will provide the progress report template.
• Engage in frequent (e.g., monthly) consultation conference calls with CARB and key stakeholders.
• Submit Interim reports to keep CARB staff informed. Upon CARB staff's request, these reports are expected at the end of each task to ensure progress is being made.

Prior to Contract Close

• Submit all data, analyses, and analytical tools generated during this project.
  • Visualization tool as stated in Task 1.
  • Literature Review Report in Task 2.
  • SOPs as stated in Task 3.
  • Data gathered/generated in Tasks 4 and 5.
• Produce plain-language fact sheets, including recommendations for preventative actions (if available). The fact sheets will be translated into Spanish.
• Satisfy the following requirements of the Draft Final Report (DFR):
  • DFR will be copy-edited, reviewed, and approved by the Principal Investigator.
  • Include a plain language summary in DFR
  • Include an equity implications section in DFR
  • If applicable, have the DFR reviewed by community representatives.
• Work with CARB to create plain-language outreach deliverables for the public, summarizing the project's results and impact.
• The Final Report submitted to CARB must be ADA-compliant.
• Participate in a virtual or in-person seminar to present the project findings.
• Peer-reviewed publications should be publicly available (please budget for this expense; submission-ready publications shall be reviewed by CARB staff).
• Additional deliverables shall be determined in consultation with CARB staff.

Timeline

This project is anticipated to be completed in 36 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $400,000.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the proposal solicitation(15 points)

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject. The proposal should present a clear research question or testable hypothesis, consider various aspects of the research need, and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation. The draft proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Research Solicitation:

This project will help evaluate the connections between agricultural operations, air quality, and community exposure risks by addressing the urgent need to develop a visualization tool that shows temporally and spatially resolved pesticide and fumigant usage in the State, compile a synthesized report on existing pesticide and fumigant monitoring and analytical techniques, and develop a new cost-effective Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for detecting multiple pesticides and fumigants to evaluate community exposure risks in California. Furthermore, the contractor will 4) work with a community to field and laboratory test the new SOP at [a] selected location[s] within the SJV to demonstrate its efficacy and 5) begin evaluating potential exposure risks using air dispersion modeling. Partnerships with Community-Based Organizations (CBO) are highly desirable. The contractor is required to engage with CBOs to ensure that the tasks of the projects are satisfied. If successful, consideration would be given to follow-on phases including additional field testing in communities.

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject. The proposal should present a clear research question or testable hypothesis, consider various aspects of the research need, and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation. The draft proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Research Solicitation Scope of Work.

Policy relevance/benefits to the state(10 points)

Does the proposal describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support CARB in achieving its mission?

AB 617 aims to address air pollution impacts in communities disproportionately affected by air pollution. This project will generate critical data necessary for assessing potential pesticide exposure in areas surrounding agricultural operations. By effectively sharing this data with the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and community-based organizations (CBOs), CARB will enhance its communication efforts, improving transparency and fostering collaboration. This will also build additional capacity to make air quality monitoring more accessible and actionable for affected communities.

Previous work (15 points)

Do the researchers have relevant experience in this area? Is the team composed of a multi-disciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build on previous relevant work funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other appropriate organizations (e.g., the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the U.S. EPA)? If community engagement is included, the relevant research partner should describe prior experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references, or a community impact statement detailing how their previous work has benefitted communities. Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary.
2. The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (25 points)

Describe the technical strengths and/or weaknesses of the pre-proposal. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach, outline the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain how the work will be carried out. The proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Consider how well the draft proposal addresses these areas:

1. Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?
2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will select only one draft proposal for development into a full proposal. If this draft proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided(15 points)

Does the proposal allocate time and resources effectively to ensure the study objectives are met? Is the supervision and oversight sufficient to keep the project on schedule? Is the distribution appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost-effectiveness (20 points)

Is the cost appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work appear feasible within the requested budget? Projects that include co-funding should be evaluated more favorably.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.

Back to main solicitation page.