Personal exposure to respirable particles: A case study in Waterbury, Vermont

https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(84)90046-5Get rights and content

Abstract

A study to assess personal exposure to respirable particles was conducted during January to March 1982 in Waterbury, Vermont. Forty-eight nonsmoking volunteers carried Harvard/EPRI personal samplers every other day for two weeks. Simultaneous measurements with similar monitors were made inside and outside each participant's home. Findings indicate that outdoor (ambient) particle levels were not an important determinant of personal exposure, while in-home concentrations accounted for 25–30% of the variation in personal values. A linear regression technique was used to estimate respirable particle concentrations in three micro-environments where measurements were not available. These values were combined with data on time activities and observed outdoor and in-home concentrations to construct a simple time-weighted exposure model. Predicted exposure using this approach agreed well with measured values, however, the validity and suitability of estimated coefficients for applications to other communities and different times of year has not been established.

References (22)

  • D.J. Moschandreas et al.

    Exposure estimation and mobility patterns

  • Cited by (79)

    • Validity of using annual mean particulate matter concentrations as measured at fixed site in assessing personal exposure: An exposure assessment study in Japan

      2014, Science of the Total Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most of the earlier epidemiological studies of long-term PM exposure and health outcomes (Dockery et al., 1993; Gehring et al., 2006; Lepeule et al., 2012; Nishiwaki et al., 2013; Pope et al., 2002; Ueda et al., 2011) based their PM exposure assessments on ambient fixed-site measurements: the exposure of individual subjects was determined on the assumption that ambient PM concentrations as monitored at the fixed site had similar temporal and spatial patterns within the defined area (Brook et al., 2010). However, because personal exposure to PM is affected not only by ambient sources but also by non-ambient sources (Wilson et al., 2000), fixed-site measurements are not necessarily representative of personal exposure (N.A. Janssen et al., 1998; Jantunen et al., 1998; Sexton et al., 1984). Clearly, measurement of what a subject is actually breathing will yield a more accurate assessment of that person's true PM exposure (Dockery and Spengler, 1981; Howard-Reed et al., 2000; N.A.H. Janssen et al., 1998; Lee et al., 2006; Mage, 1985; Wheeler et al., 1999).

    • Ambient and personal PM<inf>2.5</inf> exposure assessment in the Chinese megacity of Guangzhou

      2013, Atmospheric Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Air pollution data (specifically PM) measured from “neighborhood” ambient monitoring sites are frequently used in epidemiological studies as surrogates for exposure to entire populations. However, previous studies have shown a poor correlation between ambient PM concentrations and total personal exposures (Johannesson et al., 2007; Lachenmyer, 2000; Morandi et al., 1988; Oglesby et al., 2000; Pellizzari et al., 1999; Sexton et al., 1984; Spengler et al., 1985; Wallace, 1996; Wilson and Brauer, 2006). This is likely due to individual personal exposures incurring throughout the day, including the cumulative exposures from the ambient environment, the indoor environment, as well as from those personal activities that vary with time and from person-to-person.

    • Review of relationship between indoor and outdoor particles: I/O ratio, infiltration factor and penetration factor

      2011, Atmospheric Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since there are many I/O ratio studies (77 studies reviewed in this paper including over 4000 homes), we distilled out the large-scale studies (larger than 20 homes) as shown in Fig. 3 (PM2.5) and 4 (PM10). The detailed information of other references can be seen in Table S1 (Abt et al., 2000; Adgate et al., 2002; Adgate et al., 2003; Anderson, 1972; Arhami et al., 2010; Baek and Kim, 1997; Blondeau et al., 2005; Brickus et al., 1998; Brunekreef et al., 2005; Cao et al., 2005; Chan, 2002; Clayton et al., 1999; Davidson et al., 1986; Fischer et al., 2000; Gotschi et al., 2002; Janssen et al., 1998, 2000; Kado et al., 1994; Kinney et al., 2002; Letz et al., 1984; Lioy et al., 1990; Long and Sarnat, 2004; Lunden et al., 2008; Molnar et al., 2005; Menetrez et al., 2009; Monn et al., 1997; Meng et al., 2005; Monkkonen et al., 2005; Mouratidou and Samara, 2004; Pekey et al., 2010; Pellizzari et al., 1999; Polidori et al., 2007; Ramachandran et al., 2003; Sexton et al., 1984; Sinclair et al., 1990; Spengler and Thurston, 1983; Spengler et al., 1981; Tovalin-Ahumada et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2005). The summary of the major studies also shows an enormous range of I/O ratio for both PM2.5 and PM10.

    • Year-long continuous personal exposure to PM<inf>2.5</inf> recorded by a fast responding portable nephelometer

      2010, Atmospheric Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Despite the fact that epidemiological studies consistently find significant positive associations between ambient airborne particulate matter (PM) concentrations and adverse health effects, personal monitoring studies have generally revealed very poor correlations between personal exposures and outdoor PM concentrations measured by fixed-site ambient monitors (FSM) (Sexton et al., 1984; Wilson et al., 2000; Jantunen et al., 1998; Oglesby et al., 2000; Wallace, 2000; Monn, 2001; Adgate et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2008; Crist et al., 2008).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Present address: Indoor Air Quality Program, California Department of Health Services, Air & Industrial Hygiene Laboratory, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A.

    View full text