11.06.13 Tribal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

Tribal-University Evaluation of Chemical Exposures to Improve Community

Health (NIEHS Grant Number P42 ES016465)

Community Engagement Core

Tribal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

Wildhorse Casino & Resort

Pendleton, Oregon 97801

November 6, 2013

List of Participants

Advisory Committee Members

Julie Burke – CTUIR community member

Pat Cirone – Affiliate Professor, School of Public Health, Department of Environmental & Occupational Health,

University of Washington

Jamie Donatuto – Health Analyst, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

Katie Frevert – Research Translation and Community Engagement Core Member, University of Washington Superfund

Center

Kelly Gonzalez – Assistant Professor, School of Community Health, Portland State University

Matilda Hoisington – CTUIR community member

Susan Sheoships – CTUIR community member

Bryan Tilt – Associate Professor, School of Language, Culture and Society, OSU

Delphine Wood – CTUIR community member

Gail Woodside – PhD Student, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, OSU

(Not present)

Karen Cook – Community Wellness Director, Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center

Tim Gilbert – Chief Executive Officer, Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center

William (Bill) Lambert – Associate Professor, Department of Public Health & Preventative Medicine, Oregon Health &

Human Sciences University

Jonathan “Charlie” Picard – Manager, Community Health Services Programs, Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center

OSU and CTUIR Engagement Core Members:

Jack Butler – Air Quality Technician, Office of Air Quality, Department of Science & Engineering,

CTUIR

Anna Harding – Core Leader and Professor, College of Public Health & Human Sciences, OSU

Barbara Harper – Co-Leader, Research Associate Professor in College of Public Health & Human

Sciences, OSU; Environmental Program Manager, CTUIR

Stuart Harris – Co-Leader, Director, Department of Science & Engineering, CTUIR

Molly Kile – Assistant Professor, College of Public Health & Human Sciences, OSU

Diana Rohlman – Outreach and Engagement Coordinator, Superfund Research Center & Environmental Health Sciences

Center, OSU

Tribal University Collaboration to Address Tribal Exposures to PAHs and Improve Community Health

November 6, 2013 | Pendleton, OR

2

(Not present)

Andrés Cárdenas – PhD student, College of Public Health & Human Sciences, OSU

Dave Stone – Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology,

OSU

Other OSU Participants:

Kim Anderson— Professor, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, OSU

Norman Forsberg – Post-doc, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, OSU

Laurel Kincl – Assistant Professor & Director, Community Outreach & Engagement Core, Environmental Health

Sciences Center, OSU

Scott Lafontaine – PhD Student, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, OSU

Oleksii Motorykin—PhD Student, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, OSU

L. Blair Paulik – PhD Student, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, OSU

Jill Schrlau— Faculty Research Associate, Department of Environmental & Molecular

Toxicology, OSU

Lane Tidwell—PhD Student, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, OSU

(Not present)

Dan Sudakin – Associate Professor, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, OSU

CTUIR Support Staff

(Not present)

Michelle Burke – Administrative Assistant, CTUIR Department of Science & Engineering

Welcome to the Tribal Advisory Committee

Welcome by Stuart Harris: Mr. Harris reminded everyone of the unique collaboration that has developed over the years

between an Indian Tribe and a major research university.

Welcome by Anna Harding: Introductions and orientation to the binder that includes all the meeting materials

During the introductions, the Cosmic Serpent project at OMSI was highlighted:

http://indigenousedu.org/generations-of-knowledge-omsi/. Also mentioned was the Traditional Ways of Knowing

Initiative at OSU.

Overview of completed activities from 2009 – 2013 – accomplishments and benefits to CTUIR

The OSU SRP center focuses on PAH1, which can be found in smoked foods. Smoking foods is a worldwide,

ubiquitous practice, which calls into question the novelty of the science. Initially, the novelty of the project was a source

of debate. However, as we go forward people will want to do research and we need to focus on novel research that fills a

research gap, keeping in mind that filling research gaps is not always novel. Therefore, we need to focus on novel research

that fills a gap as identified by the CTUIR.

The novelty of this collaboration also includes the construction of a Tribal field station that is beginning to do its

own research. Novelty of the research is also found in the truly collaborative nature of the OSU – CTUIR – PNNL

partnership. Traditionally universities operated under a model of “helicopter research,” where the university came in and

studied a tribe and published their research without further tribal participation. Under this model the tribe is passive, in the

sense that tribal members do not get to participate in the research or interact in the process. Now, the OSU-CTUIR

collaboration highlights community-based research and features the material data sharing agreements so that it is very

clear the data belongs to the tribe and is “on loan” to the university researchers.

1 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

http://indigenousedu.org/generations-of-knowledge-omsi/



3

PAH air monitors installed on the reservation.

An example of capacity building within this partnership is exemplified by the creation of a personal sampler video which

shows how to use the equipment in a way that is easy to understand, and includes quality control procedures for doing air

sampling.

Comment by Jack Butler regarding the air sampling equipment: The air quality site was good because it was

regional, but the site was somewhat remote and could be difficult to access because of winter weather conditions. Still,

CTUIR was able to collect all but 3 scheduled samples. This is important because this data has national and

international implications.

Possibility for future work: Capture air quality data during wildfires (on-demand and real-time data collection).

Cultural Capacity building for SRP researchers and trainees

Benefits – The Community Engagement Core directly benefited trainees, such as Norm Forsberg, as he moved

into a post-doctoral position working with the Hanford plant. Dr. Forsberg felt that his background working with

the CTUIR and the CEC gave him a strong background for him to build on.

Tribal Research Symposium – This symposium was held to build cultural capacity in OSU researchers and staff.

This helped OSU understand the requirement for the material and data sharing agreement, because they learned

about sovereignty and cultural heritage.

Dissemination of work – The research being done by this partnership has been presented at national meetings

including the SRP meetings and the American Public Health Association Meeting (APHA), and at many other

meetings.

Unique partnership – Many tribal-university partnerships have a clear break between the culture (tribe) and the

science (university). In this partnership there is not such a clear break, because the expertise on both sides is

shared.

Analysis of traditionally smoked salmon – Review of activity

For this experiment, salmon was prepared exactly as if it were prepared to be ingested. The salmon was smoked in either a

shed or a tipi –these were the main types of smoking structures. The second experimental variable concerned the type of

smoking wood. Here, either apple or alder wood was used in both the tipi and the shed.

Note: Commercially-smoked salmon isn’t really smoked – it appears to just be given the smoked flavor, based on

the relatively low levels of PAHs in commercial smoked salmon.

Initially tribal members thought the study was trying to prove the salmon were unhealthy, thereby preventing them from

eating it. With studies like this, it is crucial to think about how best to present the data. When presenting, make it clear that

we are doing the study without bias and presenting the outcome of the study. The consumer can then make their own

decisions about how to prepare the salmon, who should be smoking the fish (e.g. pregnant women should avoid smoking

fish) and if they want to continue eating the salmon.

Comment: Also suggest that instead of avoiding salmon, suggest consumers mix the type of salmon, for example

rotate fresh baked, canned, dried, smoked and other preparations of salmon. It is important to avoid saying that anyone

should significantly alter their traditional diet.

QUESTION (Pat Cirone): Are you done, or what are the next steps with that study? For example, the UK has put

out some international regulations about smoked food.

ANSWER: We are now trying to take the levels of PAH back to human health. We faced two challenges with that

goal. 1) The existing standards and this project were difficult to bring together and 2) how do we best bring the data back

to the tribe in an understandable way.

Results from 2012 focus group research with Tribal Members (Molly Kile)

CTUIR and OSU held three 90-minute focus group sessions with a total of 27 participants to discuss meanings of health

and how the environment interacts with health.



4

Typically, health is defined as the absence of disease/disability. Here (at CTUIR), we were trying to identify the

components that build a healthy life, and relate that to individual environments. For the analysis, we transcribed the

interviews, and then identified common themes. The full transcripts of the focus groups are kept with the CTUIR, and the

results have been published.2

In the focus groups we found that the CTUIR identified many social components to being healthy – community health,

social health, mental health, spiritual health, cultural health. Being able to self-manage people, taking care of our people –

there was an easily identified theme of independence tied to the CTUIR definition of health. Because of the

environmental, physical, mental, spiritual and intergenerational social components, the CTUIR do not have an easy,

simplistic definition of health.

Another health theme that was identified was the role of environmental hazards contributing to disease within the CTUIR

community.

QUESTION: What were the demographics of the group? ANSWER: good mix, about 50/50 male female.

QUESTION: Where there generational differences? ANSWER: The analysis we did stripped out age differences or gender

differences, and just looked overall at the data.

QUESTION: Did you explore how the knowledge of these environmental hazards contributed to the practice of cultural

events? ANSWER: Not directly, but we found a lot of value in the use of focus groups, and something we could use in the

future to start addressing these issues. Also, the analysis we used may not be appropriate, as for Native Americans, it is

important for a person’s story to be told, not to remove the individual component.

QUESTION: Regarding people’s perceptions of specific pollution sources – did people give you a specific list? How

detailed were the responses? ANSWER: The level of detail ranged. One member that worked at the casino was concerned

about second-hand smoke, so that person relied on the environment as a reprieve from smoke. Other members were

concerned about the asphalt plant. An older member talked about the hazardous waste dump near the creek from a long

time ago that she remembered and she raised this concern. Overall there was a large concern centered on first foods,

feeding salmon to family, radiation from Hanford and mercury exposure. The topics were wide-ranging, and all brought

from the community. One young member said she was trained by her grandmother to do the smoke shed, and she said she

now realizes she may have a greater exposure to PAH when doing the traditional smoking. Mold and mildew, indoor air

quality and exposure to methamphetamine labs were also listed as areas of concern.

Results from 2011 personal air monitoring of tribal members smoking salmon – Oleksii Motorykin

“Cancer and non-cancer risks associated with inhalation during fish smoking at CTUIR”

This study used personal air samplers, held in the breathing zone, on volunteers that were smoking salmon. As this was a

pilot study, there was only one individual so no error bars could be generated. While PAH are higher in the smoke shed

(SS), it is difficult to make conclusions because there was no repetition (n=1). While the type of wood used does not

appear to influence levels of PAH, the type of smoking structure does appear to have an effect.

To evaluate cancer and non-cancer risks, the Simonich lab calculated toxicity equivalency factors (TEF) based on

benzo[a]pyrene. These TEFs are used to calculate estimated toxicity of a chemical mixture. With that value, one can then

assign a relative potency factor to the other chemicals, and sum up it all up. With this value, x, you can determine a one-

time risk factor, y (risk from a single smoking event). Then you can calculate the risk assuming a lifetime exposure to this

chemical mixture. This value takes into consideration the number of times a year you smoke fish, number of years you

will smoke fish, your overall air inhalation rate, and your body weight. A standard average inhalation rate and body

weight (70kg) was chosen for this calculation.

2 Schure, M.B., Kile, M.L., Harding, A., Harper, B., Harris, S., Uesugi, S., Goins, R.T. 2013. Perceptions of the Environment and

Health Among Members of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Environ. Justice, 6: 115-120.



5

Results – calculating cancer risk: Using the Cal-OEHHA3 unit risk calculation, lifetime cancer risk from smoking

salmon using traditional CTUIR methods is low. But, if you use the WHO unit risk, there is an elevated risk for two of the

four values for lifetime cancer risk. Cancer risk is dependent on fish consumption, so several different scenarios were

evaluated. If a person ate 5 g/day of traditionally smoked salmon, the calculations indicate low to no risk, but ingestion of

300g/day of smoked salmon has significant lifetime cancer risk using the above calculations. Realistically, traditional fish

consumption amounts are even higher, but not all the fish being consumed has been smoked. It can be difficult to

realistically evaluate cancer risk.

Results – calculating noncarcinogenic risk: The highest values seen in the air during the smoking events were

even lower than the NIOSH recommended exposure limit of 0.1 mg/m3. However, NIOSH levels are not appropriate for

direct application to household exposures (or smoking events) unless an additional safety factor is used. Based on the

PAH concentrations observed in this study, and the available NIOSH data, there is not a significant human health risk.

The caveat is that this is based off a none-time exposure, n =1, and does not accurately reflect a lifetime exposure of

smoking fish.

Concern raised by Pat Cirone: This presentation has enormous assumptions, since many of the values are based on

occupational workers, not people living on a reservation, and there are assumptions built into the potency factors, as well

as acceptable risk and what is ‘safe’. The assumptions need to be clearly discussed in the paper.

Other concerns:

Non-cancer risk assessment comparisons are an 8-hour time-weighted average so be careful with these

assumptions

Be very clear about the assumptions being used in your risk assessment model. It would be best to get early

feedback on your paper to make sure you are not misleading or reaching erroneous conclusions

Consider acute and chronic considerations for inhalation

QUESTION: Can the advisory committee also comment on the urinary analysis paper?

This was not really answered, but tangentially discussed when it was made clear that CTUIR would approve the

paper

Comment: Barbara Harper: Keep the committee in the loop during the draft section of the paper.

Comment: Bryan Tilt: Using a value of 300g/day of salmon to calculate risk seems quite high. That is almost ¾ lbs of

salmon.

Response: This is a ‘real’ number, as tribal members rely on salmon as a strong source of protein.

Response: Molly Kile – I suggest using Monte Carlo simulation models to visualize risk over a range of

parameters

Results from 2009-2013 PAH and PM ambient air monitoring analysis and update – Scott Lafontaine

We obtained 112 samples from samplers placed in two geographically separate sites (Cabbage Hill and Mission site) from

March 2010 – November 2011. Samples covered a 24 hour period, and were taken at 1-2 week intervals. We then

performed the Ames test on sample extracts to look at the mutagenicity potential of air samples.

At the Cabbage Hill site (high elevation) – we performed high volume sampling of PM2.54, which are particles that are

small enough to be inhaled, and are typically combustion products. We looked at a possible correlation between the sum

PAH, NPAH and OPAH concentrations, but found no significant correlation. However, the results may be affected by

non-detects.

At the Mission site (lower elevation), we used a different sampling system. At this site we looked at a correlation between

organic carbon and the PM2.5. The rationale was that typically PM2.5 is made of particles that are elemental (EC) or

organic carbon (OC). We were trying to answer the question: Is the source of PM2.5 from combustion or other sources?

However, there was no correlation so we could not answer the question. Since there was a concern that the results were

3 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

4 Particulate matter 2.5 – particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. These particles are in the respirable fraction, and

therefore a health concern.



6

being affected by including samples that were below detection limits (non-detects), we removed all those samples and re-

ran the analysis. There were still no statistical correlations.

Discussion point: Use data from both Mission and Cabbage Hill to compare exposures. It would be worthwhile to

explore other sampling sites in further grant applications.

The ambient air samples were also subjected to the Ames mutagenicity assay. In this assay, you use a bacterium that

requires histidine in the media for growth. Without histidine, the bacterium cannot grow, unless it mutates to be able to

grow in the absence of histidine. To test the mutagenic potential of a sample, culture bacteria on histidine-free agar, and

add your sample. If significantly more bacterial colonies grow in the presence of the sample relative to your controls, this

suggests the sample is a mutagen that has caused the bacteria to mutate and become capable of growing in the absence of

histidine.

Results – Out of 112 samples there were 9 days were the observed mutagenicity was two times that of the

negative control. However, direct mutagenicity was not correlated to the sum PAH, NPAH, OPAH, OC/EC, or sum

PM2.5. The lack of correlation may due to a small n, as there were only 9 samples showing a level of mutagenicity above

that of the negative control.

To help put this data in perspective, Staci Simonich, the PI of this lab, was asked to compare the CTUIR results to

her Beijing results. Of her Beijing samples, there are nearly 100 times more revertants (bacteria that grew in the absence

of histidine) than seen in the samples collected at CTUIR.

QUESTION: Have you looked at PAH signature? ANSWER: Not yet.

QUESTION: Are there difference between the two sites that would indicate pollution from different sources? ANSWER:

There were no correlations. The assumption was that when we saw the highest concentration of PAH at Mission, that

would correlate with the days we saw the highest levels at Cabbage Hill. This doesn’t happen, so the sites are different

and have different exposures.

QUESTION: How does your data address community concerns about air pollution? ANSWER: Dependent on your location

within the reservation you may be affected by different sources of pollution.

QUESTION: Only 9 days out of 112 showed positive Ames test. Where was this? ANSWER: All of these samples were

taken at Cabbage Hill.

Comment by Staci Simonich – Those results do not speak directly to increased risk; at this point we can only say

we had 9 detectable events. In contrast, all the other samples had no result in the Ames test.

The source of pollutants with potential mutagenicity potential is unknown, could be agricultural or industrial.

Comment by Anna Harding: Can you summarize your findings for a community group:

We have more interpretation to do to figure our source regions. The area is influenced by multiple sources and

different wind patterns. The mutagenicity data is very low, with only 9 days above the detection limit. I am hesitant to say

there is no risk, but with multiple sources the risk appears low. This is an update only; no conclusions have been drawn

yet and are dependent on further analysis.

Results from 2012-2013 passive sampling device samples from smoke shed and smoked salmon – Lane Tidwell

“Using Passive Sampling Devices to assess bioavailable PAHs in traditionally smoked fish”

The design of this experiment was to see if we could use passive sampling devices (PSD) as a surrogate for the

traditionally smoked food product, in this case, salmon. The original study needed to actually sample the smoked food

itself. The hope is that PSD5 can eliminate the need to destructively sample the food.

From the initial study, referenced in the talk by Oleksii Motorykin, we had deployed PSD. During that event, when we

looked at the PSD after the sampling event, we initially thought there were some issues. The results from the PSD did not

5 Passive Sampling Device - sequesters volatile organic contaminants from the air without use of a battery or continued maintenance.



7

match the ambient air concentrations obtained from the active air samplers deployed by Simonich lab. This led to a

paradigm shift in our thinking, leading us to ask; “does the PSD more accurately quantify levels of PSD in the organism

that is being smoked, rather than represent ambient air concentrations?”

Study questions – can you use the PSD to estimate the total PAH load in a smoked salmon? Is there a correlation

that exists? What is the carcinogenic PAH fraction that is being detected? Can you make a risk assessment based off the

results of the PSD? Based off oral ingestion of smoked salmon?

Sampling design: 5 PSD and 5 salmon were deployed in a smoke shed (owned and operated by Stuart Harris).

Observation – PSD were visibly impacted by the smoking process.

Following the smoking event, we compared the levels of PAH in the smoked salmon to the smoked PSD. Initially, the

values looked nearly identical to those obtained in the first pilot study,6 which had only n = 1. This study was designed to

have a greater number of replicates, thereby allowing statistical analysis. From this we were able to confirm what we had

initially suspected – there were no significant differences between the smoked salmon and the PSD. The salmon does have

a lot of variability versus the PSD, but this is most likely explained by the fact that the salmon being sampled was of

different thicknesses, and taken from different areas of the salmon.

Conclusions: PSD may provide a measure to assess PAH contributions for different food smoking techniques. Higher

level modeling of PSD and salmon results is warranted. This is an example of successful collaboration between CTUIR

and OSU. This study required a tribal member partner (Stuart Harris) to perform the smoking and help planning the

experiments, and OSU to set up PSD samples and perform the chemical analysis.

QUESTION (Jill Shrlau): The PSD material appears to be compromised in the heat of the smoke shed (referring to the

observation listed above). Have you addressed this issue? ANSWER: I would not say compromised, that is not a good

word. We log the temperature of the smoke shed, and the PSD were spiked with higher concentrations of performance

reference compounds, so we were still able to calculate the chemicals. The PSD had not carbonized (burned) and was still

taking up chemical.

QUESTION (Jill Shrlau): Is total accumulation affected by the PSD being heated and visibly changed? ANSWER: I want

to confirm that the relationship between the PSD and the salmon is quantifiable. We already have good agreement

between the two matrices, so our question was answered. We want to strongly confirm this relationship.

QUESTION: There is a signature for smoked salmon. Did you look at unsmoked salmon, to see if there was a different

PAH signature? ANSWER: Yes, we had an n=5 from un-smoked salmon, and the PAH profile was quite similar to the un-

smoked salmon Norman saw in his study. There is a different signature versus smoked salmon. You are not just increasing

existing PAH in unsmoked salmon, you are introducing new PAH during smoking events.

QUESTION: Could we write a paper about the PAH levels in the 24 un-smoked tribal salmon? ANSWER: That

data is already published in supplemental data (See Footnote 6).

QUESTION: What about PAH that you don’t have a standard for? ANSWER: We have a method that can quantitatively

look at 62 chemicals. There is a matrix effect and a strong background that shows up with full scan, and we have not

looked fully at the full scan; currently we have focused on the quantitative 62 PAH we are set up to analyze. R

QUESTION: Does having data on more PAHs help in assessing the dose and risk if there are no TEQ values for

them?

Comment on novelty – using PSD as a surrogate for food is a novel technique (Norman Forsberg). In terms of

applicability, this can be a good tool to answer regulatory questions.

6 Forsberg N.D, Stone, D. Harding A., Harper, B., Harris, S., Matzke, M.M., Cardenas, A., Waters, K.M., Anderson, K.A. 2012.

Effect of Native American Smoking Methods on Dietary Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Possible Risks to

Human Health. J Ag Food Chem 60: 6899-6906.



8

Renewal aims and activities for 2013 – 2018

Aim 1: Address CTUIR concerns about environmental pollutants, build Tribal capacity to measure pollutants.

Dietary exposure from smoked fish/meat (Year 1 activity)

Goal – determine the risk associated with smoked fish/meat. To do this, CTUIR-OSU propose to look at the metabolic

activity of PAH in the body by performing pharmacokinetics on urine samples following ingestion of 50g of smoked

salmon. This will be a novel study, looking at tribal dietary exposure following ingestion of a traditionally prepared food.

(Note: Following the proposal of the study, the floor was opened to comments and observations by the Tribal Advisory

Board.)

Stuart Harris – It can sometimes be difficult to get information from tribal members. When we are doing these

environmental health studies and obtaining biological samples, it can be difficult to convince tribal members to

give these samples, and to let them know that their privacy and security of their samples is being taken seriously.

It is difficult to work with your neighbors and friends. You are asking them to participate in something with a lot

of cultural meaning (first food) and something sensitive (giving biological samples).

Concerns raised by the board:

1) Can you detect the PAH in such a small sample following ingestion?

a. Rebuttal – we only need to look at pharmacokinetics

b. Rebuttal to the rebuttal – but if you cannot detect the PAHs, you cannot perform pharmacokinetics

2) This amount of smoked salmon is not representative of an actual tribal meal

a. We can try to amend the IRB, arguing that we would need a meal that is representative of actual

ingestion.

3) So what if you do test 300g/day, and the results indicate significant risk? How do you communicate that data?

Is this too much information? Burdensome information? Are you taking away choices from the tribal

members? (Jamie Donatuto)

Rebuttal – the data from this collaboration indicates that 300g of salmon per day appears to have

increased cancer risk – IRB may have an issue with this.

4) Regardless of what size the sample is, will it result in changes to the diet, and the response from tribal

members, especially among the elders, is unknown.

Conclusion – the size of the fish portion will be discussed among the project team.

5) How will you communicate this data to tribal members?

This generated a great deal of conversation. A transcript of the discussion is listed below.

We are talking about saving a people, not restricting their freedom or their culture – Stuart Harris.

“The food feeds my spirit and my body [even though it’s not good for us to eat anymore].” CTUIR Tribal

Advisory Member quoting her grandmother

Heads of family are making the decision for the whole family. However, there are other ways to prepare

fish. Not all Indian families get salmon or get smoked salmon. If there is a high risk from smoked salmon

they will still eat it. “Fishermen get angry if you say a fish is not safe to eat. Tribal fisherman aren't

thinking about these things. It is our First Food and that is how we think about it.” Julie Burke

The benefits accrued from eating fish are overlooked in risk assessment, but these benefits need to be

considered to best understand how to create a unified health message. Furthermore, the risk we are talking

about has a lot of uncertainty and assumption, so it is an important distinction to get across to people.

Proposed revision to the dietary exposure study: In addition to the ten volunteers eating traditionally smoked salmon,

include a control group of another ten people eating non-smoked salmon. Then compare the results between the two

groups. This would address the concern that fresh salmon caught by Tribal members is not safe to eat.



9

IRB consideration: the project is approved for 10 people, so consider a control group of 4 people eating non-

smoked salmon and 6 eating smoked salmon. This addresses the concerns raised by the Tribal Advisory Board and

remains in compliance with the approved IRB.

Woodstove emissions and air quality in CTUIR homes.

There have been repeated CTUIR requests to study indoor air quality in homes. To begin addressing these concerns, we

propose looking at PM2.5 levels in CTUIR homes. This has multiple benefits: 1) PM2.5 correlates with PAH levels, 2)

PM2.5 are easy to study and 3) should generate quick results. In addition to looking at indoor air quality, we also want to

put ambient air monitors outside the home or near the home, to evaluate what effect outdoor air quality has on indoor air

quality.

Study questions: Determine if homes that used wood stoves/wood boilers had higher average indoor concentration

of PM2.5 compared to homes with electric heat after adjusting for other factors that contribute to indoor PM2.5.

Determine if indoor concentrations of PM2.5 are different than ambient concentrations of PM2.5 measured at the

CTUIR ambient air monitoring station on the same day.

QUESTION: Does wood-smoke affect eyes? My nephew has a baby who was seen by the doctor who said their eyes are

damaged by wood-smoke. ANSWER: Wood-smoke is an irritant, and newborns can be more sensitive.

QUESTION: Are you controlling for the type of stove and type of wood burned (wet, semi-dry, highly dry), or burning

trash (flyers, etc.). ANSWER: We are capturing reality – whatever people normally do they should continue doing. We

will make observations about the type of wood being burned. Common wood is Douglas fir.

QUESTION: Is there a perceived downside or upside to participating in this? ANSWER: We are not offering incentives to

participate in this program. Also, there are no regulations for air quality on tribal lands, so if you participate and have very

poor air quality, you are not required to take action.

Comment – Jamie Donatuto – Begin the process to get a stove replacement program in place. That way, if some homes

come back saying they need new stoves, by the time they get the data back, you would have a mechanism in place to bring

in a new stove.

Comment – Julie Burke – there are some wood-fired boilers left, predominantly in rental homes. In HUD units, the stoves

are actually ornamental, not to be actually used. If they were used, the smoke filled the house, so then the stove had to be

blocked off and residents were told they could not use it because it was not safe.

Conclusions: Need to collaborate with the housing department to find wood-burning homes, wood-fired boilers, and to

begin looking into stove replacement programs.

Wristband7 passive sampling devices to measure ambient exposures – Kim Anderson, Molly Kile

QUESTION – can we get the Swinomish involved [using the wristbands]? (Jamie Donatuto, regarding the use of the

wristband personal passive sampler)

Comment – this isn’t an exposure study, but more community engagement.

NOTE: Are there extra wristbands for Jamie Donatuto?

QUESTION: What about testing for illicit drugs (Stuart Harris)? ANSWER: What categories people want to analyze will

govern what is measured.

Aim 2 – Build tribal capacity in analytical methods with CTUIR Field Station and understanding of PAH exposures with

Swinomish and Samish Nations

Situated in 2 acres, within a chain link fence with barbed wire on top to prevent the fence being climbed, the CTUIR field

station is 5000 square feet with two greenhouse domes outside. It contains an unfinished biology lab and a semi-finished

7 The wristbands are made of silicone, and are the same as the passive sampling devices previously described (see Footnote 5), but are

designed for personal air monitoring. O’Connell et al. 2013, manuscript submitted.



10

chemistry lab (built and equipped but not all extraction materials, supplies, and reagents are present). We have state-of-

the-art equipment, which includes a dedicated mercury analyzer. Video conferencing available and has been used with

universities. We also have a seed bank housed at the field station, with about 80 species from Hanford.

Opportunity to collaborate with OSU (Stuart Harris) – we want OSU to do QA to check our work. We also envision

using the lab as an extension of OSU, where we could offer extension courses, develop K-12 curriculum through the lab,

sponsor internships, and also take contracts from outside areas.

QUESTION: Can the field station be used to help ease students into OSU. There is a charter high school geared towards

tribal interests but geared towards science. What about an exchange program for interns between DOSE and OSU labs?

ANSWER: That is something EHSC would like to help with.

QUESTION: Is there a field sampling component to the field station? ANSWER: That is being considered but it is

currently a future endeavor.

Passive sampling devices and shellfish – Blair Paulik

This project is a collaborative project with the Swinomish and the Samish. Shellfish contamination is a concern, especially

for people that rely on eating them. Testing shellfish is both time-consuming, and costly. Plus, collecting and using

shellfish for sampling could have a negative impact on the people that rely on shellfish as a source of food. We are hoping

to use PSD in place of shellfish.

Goal – reduce the impact we are having on these foods that are important culturally and for subsistence.

Note – in the interest of time Aim 3 (Outreach and dissemination of results) was not discussed in detail. Participants were

asked to review Aim 3 on their own time.

Discussion, OSU’s EHSC and feedback/advice from the Advisory Committee

*This was an open discussion, and did not follow a structured outline. The following notes are taken in chronologic

order.*

Jamie Donatuto – A possible project for Tribal outreach that has worked for us is the Native Lens project. We asked kids

to film their own stories, not write them down. This format can help introduce kids to science, and address negative

stereotypes about native people. This way, if kids don’t want to write an essay, they can create a film instead. The

feedback we have gotten is that the kids really like it.

Jack Butler: Is there the ability to accumulate epidemiological data for air quality research?

Ways to demonstrate capacity between tribes and universities:

Can the tribal meeting be used to demonstrate how to build capacity between tribes and university?

We could tailor this in different ways:

o Address issues researchers need to know about in order to do work with tribes

o Turn it into an opportunity to pull in Native students already enrolled at OSU who are undecided;

We could present work at Portland Tribal group and Native Research Network Conference in Phoenix, the

SACNAS conference is another alternative.

Kim has a paper coming out soon with building lab capacity

o citizen.science.osu - how to collect samples that meet QA is coming soon which can be a way to help

people participate in science

QUESTION: How can you introduce science to people that do not like science, don’t see a need for it, feel it brings more

problems.

1) Introduce students first to the science, then they can educate parents

2) Use the Tribal symposium to help introduce the scientific concepts

a. Use a webinar format to use it nationally instead of regionally



11

3) Opportunity to pull in native students that are already enrolled at OSU that may be undecided about their

major

4) Native Research network conference – has a community based component

a. Comprised of native and non-native researchers working in partnership

Introducing OSU’s Environmental Health Science Center

Laurel Kincl (Director) and Diana Rohlman (Outreach Coordinator) discussed various ways to initiate a mechanism for

collaboration and Tribal youth outreach between the university and CTUIR.

QUESTION: Is there a way to get people of color to help lead university events? ANSWER: Yes, we can work with the

Native American Longhouse, LSAMP, and the SACNAS chapter.

QUESTION: Are there mechanisms to get CTUIR on campus? ANSWER: Yes, there is mechanism in place, through the

Office of Precollege Programs8, which we work with. One up-coming example is an event called Discover the Scientist

Within for 6-8 grade girls.

Summary of points to address in the future

Dietary exposure study: Proposed change to the study design to have six people eat smoked salmon, and 4 people eat non-

smoked salmon. Look at the difference. This addresses the concern that fresh salmon caught by Tribal members is not safe

to eat.

Wood-burning stove study: Begin the process with the housing department now so that new stoves can be available to

tribal members if they want them, at the end of the project.

The housing department can also be a resource to identify homes that are wood-burning or use a wood-fired

boiler.

Use of wristband PSD: Jamie Donatuto is very interested in getting the Swinomish involved in this project.

Comment by Stuart Harris – there is concern among the elders about exposure to illicit drugs, given the increase

in methamphetamine laboratories. Can these PSD be used to test for illicit drugs? This is not a question to identify users,

but to get an idea of how much people are being exposed to illicit drug residue (smoke, by-products, etc.)

OSU – DOSE proposed collaborative ideas:

(1) The DOSE lab has asked if OSU could help check their quality assurance standards

a. This could help the lab take outside contracts

(2) Use the Field Station as an extension of OSU

a. Extension courses

b. Develop K-12 curriculum using the laboratory resources

(3) Have CTUIR students intern at OSU

8 Office of Precollege Programs: http://oregonstate.edu/precollege/

http://oregonstate.edu/precollege/

Education

11.06.13 Tribal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes