5 results found
Han Y, Chatzidiakou L, Yan L, et al., 2021, Difference in ambient-personal exposure to PM2.5 and its inflammatory effect in local residents in urban and peri-urban Beijing, China: results of the AIRLESS project, Faraday Discussions, Vol: 226, Pages: 569-583, ISSN: 1359-6640
Measurement of ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is often used as a proxy of personal exposure in epidemiological studies. However, the difference between personal and ambient exposure, and whether it biases the estimates of health effects remain unknown. Based on an epidemiological study (AIRLESS) and simultaneously launched intensive monitoring campaigns (APHH), we quantified and compared the personal and ambient exposure to PM2.5 and the related health impact among residents in Beijing, China. In total, 123 urban and 128 peri-urban non-smoking participants were recruited from two well-established cohorts in Beijing. During winter 2016 and summer 2017, each participant was instructed to carry a validated personal air monitor (PAM) to measure PM2.5 concentration at high spatiotemporal resolution for seven consecutive days in each season. Multiple inflammatory biomarkers were measured, including exhaled NO, blood monocytes counts and C-reactive protein. Linear mixed-effect models were used for the associations between exposure and health outcomes with adjustment for confounders. The average level of daily personal exposure to PM2.5 was consistently lower than using corresponding ambient concentration, and the difference is greater during the winter. The personal to ambient (P/A) ratio of exposure to PM2.5 exhibited an exponentially declining trend, and showed larger variations when ambient PM2.5 levels < 25 μg m−3. Personal exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with the increase in respiratory and systemic inflammatory biomarkers; however, the associations were weaker or became insignificant when ambient concentrations were used. Exposure to ambient PM2.5 might not be a good proxy to estimate the health effect of exposure to personal PM2.5.
Chatzidiakou L, Krause A, Han Y, et al., 2020, Using low-cost sensor technologies and advanced computational methods to improve dose estimations in health panel studies: results of the AIRLESS project, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, Vol: 30, Pages: 981-989, ISSN: 1559-0631
BackgroundAir pollution epidemiology has primarily relied on fixed outdoor air quality monitoring networks and static populations.MethodsTaking advantage of recent advancements in sensor technologies and computational techniques, this paper presents a novel methodological approach that improves dose estimations of multiple air pollutants in large-scale health studies. We show the results of an intensive field campaign that measured personal exposures to gaseous pollutants and particulate matter of a health panel of 251 participants residing in urban and peri-urban Beijing with 60 personal air quality monitors (PAMs). Outdoor air pollution measurements were collected in monitoring stations close to the participants’ residential addresses. Based on parameters collected with the PAMs, we developed an advanced computational model that automatically classified time-activity-location patterns of each individual during daily life at high spatial and temporal resolution.ResultsApplying this methodological approach in two established cohorts, we found substantial differences between doses estimated from outdoor and personal air quality measurements. The PAM measurements also significantly reduced the correlation between pollutant species often observed in static outdoor measurements, reducing confounding effects.ConclusionsFuture work will utilise these improved dose estimations to investigate the underlying mechanisms of air pollution on cardio-pulmonary health outcomes using detailed medical biomarkers in a way that has not been possible before.
Evangelopoulos D, Katsouyanni K, Keogh RH, et al., 2020, PM2.5 and NO2 exposure errors using proxy measures, including derived personal exposure from outdoor sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Environment International, Vol: 137, ISSN: 0160-4120
BACKGROUND: The use of proxy exposure estimates for PM2.5 and NO2 in air pollution studies instead of personal exposures, introduces measurement error, which can produce biased epidemiological effect estimates. Most studies consider total personal exposure as the gold standard. However, when studying the effects of ambient air pollution, personal exposure from outdoor sources is the exposure of interest. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the magnitude and variability of exposure measurement error by conducting a systematic review of the differences between personal exposures from outdoor sources and the corresponding measurements for ambient concentrations in order to increase understanding of the measurement error structures of the pollutants. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We reviewed the literature (ISI Web of Science, Medline, 2000-2016) for English language studies (in any age group in any location (NO2) or Europe and North America (PM2.5)) that reported repeated measurements over time both for personal and ambient PM2.5 or NO2 concentrations. Only a few studies reported personal exposure from outdoor sources. We also collected data for infiltration factors and time-activity patterns of the individuals in order to estimate personal exposures from outdoor sources in every study. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies using modelled rather than monitored exposures were excluded. Type of personal exposure monitor was assessed. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to quantify exposure error as the mean difference between "true" and proxy measures. RESULTS: Thirty-two papers for PM2.5 and 24 for NO2 were identified. Outdoor sources were found to contribute 44% (range: 33-55%) of total personal exposure to PM2.5 and 74% (range: 57-88%) to NO2. Overall estimates of personal exposure (24-hour averages) from outdoor sources were 9.3 μg/m3 and 12.0 ppb for PM2.5 and NO2 respectively, while the corresponding difference between these expo
Chatzidiakou L, Krause A, Popoola OAM, et al., 2019, Characterising low-cost sensors in highly portable platforms to quantify personal exposure in diverse environments, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, Vol: 12, Pages: 4643-4657, ISSN: 1867-1381
The inaccurate quantification of personal exposure to air pollution introduces error and bias in health estimations, severely limiting causal inference in epidemiological research worldwide. Rapid advancements in affordable, miniaturised air pollution sensor technologies offer the potential to address this limitation by capturing the high variability of personal exposure during daily life in large-scale studies with unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution. However, concerns remain regarding the suitability of novel sensing technologies for scientific and policy purposes. In this paper we characterise the performance of a portable personal air quality monitor (PAM) that integrates multiple miniaturised sensors for nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM) measurements along with temperature, relative humidity, acceleration, noise and GPS sensors. Overall, the air pollution sensors showed high reproducibility (mean R¯¯¯2=0.93, min–max: 0.80–1.00) and excellent agreement with standard instrumentation (mean R¯¯¯2=0.82, min–max: 0.54–0.99) in outdoor, indoor and commuting microenvironments across seasons and different geographical settings. An important outcome of this study is that the error of the PAM is significantly smaller than the error introduced when estimating personal exposure based on sparsely distributed outdoor fixed monitoring stations. Hence, novel sensing technologies such as the ones demonstrated here can revolutionise health studies by providing highly resolved reliable exposure metrics at a large scale to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the effects of air pollution on health.
Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, et al., 2016, Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment, Science, Vol: 353, Pages: 288-291, ISSN: 0036-8075
Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary (‘safe limit’). We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness – the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems – beyond its recently-proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world’s land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas, is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts towards long-term sustainable development.
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.