Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Assessing Outdoor Air Near Schools

I.C. Evans Elementary School - Burkburnett, TX

Results and Analysis of EPA’s monitoring

EPA selected this school for monitoring because it is located near a fiberglass pipe manufacturing facility which is a source of air toxics emissions.  Computer models were used to determine which air toxics may be present at elevated levels in the outdoor air near the school.  These models showed that 4,4’-methylenedianiline could be present in the air around the school and prompted EPA to test to see if the levels present may be of concern.  

Primary Findings Monitors located at the school did not detect 4,4-methylenedianiline in any samples.  The key source has reported no emissions of this pollutant since 2007.
Key Pollutants Monitored 4,4-Methylenedianiline.  Inhalation may cause eye damage if people are exposed to high levels.
Next Steps Based on the analysis described here, EPA will not extend air toxics monitoring at this school.

EPA remains concerned about emissions from sources of air toxics and continues to work to reduce those emissions across the country, through national rules and by providing information and suggestions to assist with reductions in local areas.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) will continue to oversee industrial facilities in the area through air permits and other programs. 

Top of page

Summary of Study Approach and Findings


  • A monitor collected air samples from August 29, 2009 through February 18, 2010 at the I.C. Evans Elementary School in Burkburnett, TX.
  • We posted individual air sample results on this website throughout the monitoring period to keep your community informed during the monitoring period.
  • During the monitoring period, we evaluated the monitored concentrations to see if there was a concern from short-term exposures (e.g., several weeks).
  • When the monitoring was complete, we analyzed the results to see if there was a concern from long-term exposures (over a lifetime).
  • Also, when the monitoring was complete, we evaluated all the air samples from the on-site monitor. We also evaluated information on wind speed and wind direction from a weather monitor at the school, along with historical weather information and information about the nearby source of 4,4’-methylenedianiline emissions.


  • Our analysis found no detectable levels of 4,4’-methylenedianilinine in the air at the school.
  • The measurements of 4,4’-methylenedianiline are lower than those suggested by the information that helped identify this school for monitoring.
  • The process to identify schools for monitoring relied on emissions estimates and other information. Ambient air monitoring at the school allowed measurement of what was actually in the air.
  • The key source has reported no emissions of 4,4’-methylenedianilinein since 2007.
  • Because the analysis shows the monitors did not detect 4,4’-methylenedianiline and this facility no longer emits this pollutant, EPA will not extend air toxics monitoring at this school
  • Click here for additional information

Top of page

How We Analyzed the Information We Collected at this School

The analysis considered whether the information collected at the school might raise concerns for the health of children or adults at the school. We looked at the following types of information:

  • Measured 4,4’-methylenedianiline concentrations and information on 4,4’-methylenedianiline
  • Measured wind direction and wind speed at the school
  • Information about nearby sources of 4,4’-methylenedianiline emissions

Analysis of Measured 4,4’-Methylenedianiline Concentrations:

Result: 4,4’-Methylenedianiline was not detected

Top of page

Analysis of Measured Wind Direction and Wind Speed at the School

We took measurements of wind direction and speed every day during the sample period. We took special note of the wind speed and direction on the days we took measurements of 4,4’-methylenedianiline.

What we looked at What we found
We looked at whether the wind data taken on the days we took measurements of 4,4’-methylenedianiline are similar or different from the wind patterns during the entire sampling period. We found the wind patterns taken on the days we took measurements of 4,4’-methylenedianiline to be generally similar to those observed during the entire sampling period.
We looked at whether the wind pattern during the sampling period is reflective of regional wind pattern over the long term. Although we lack long-term wind data at the monitoring site, the wind pattern at the NWS station during the sampling period is generally similar to the historical long-term wind flow pattern at that location.  Therefore, the 5-month sampling period may be representative of year-round wind patterns.

Analysis of Information on Nearby Source of 4,4’-Methylenedianiline Emissions

What we looked at What we found
Whether we could determine if the sources were operating as usual during the sampling period The most recently available 4,4’-methylenedianiline emissions estimates for this source are much lower than those relied upon in previous modeling analysis for this area.  There were no 2007 or 2008 TRI emissions reported for this source, and preliminary 2009 TRI data also indicates no emissions of the primary pollutant
There were no detections of 4,4’-methylenedianiline in any of the samples collected.
The nearby source of 4,4’-methylenedianiline has a Title V operating air permits issued by the TCEQ that includes operating requirements.

Top of page

Additional Information

Technical Report for School: Assessing Outdoor Air Near Schools: I.C. Evans Elementary School (Burkburnett, TX) (PDF) (17pp, 119k). The technical report is geared toward risk assessors, risk managers, and other regulatory agencies. 

Background on School Monitoring Effort

General Questions and Answers for School Monitoring Effort

Top of page

Jump to main content.