Applications of GPS-tracked personal and fixed-location PM2.5 continuous exposure monitoring

Abstract

Continued development of personal air pollution monitors is rapidly improving government and research capabilities for data collection. In this study, we tested the feasibility of using GPS-enabled personal exposure monitors to collect personal exposure readings and short-term daily PM2.5 measures at 15 fixed locations throughout a community. The goals were to determine the accuracy of fixed-location monitoring for approximating individual exposures compared to a centralized outdoor air pollution monitor, and to test the utility of two different personal monitors, the RTI MicroPEM V3.2 and TSI SidePak AM510. For personal samples, 24-hr mean PM2.5 concentrations were 6.93 μg/m3 (stderr = 0.15) and 8.47 μg/m3 (stderr = 0.10) for the MicroPEM and SidePak, respectively. Based on time–activity patterns from participant journals, exposures were highest while participants were outdoors (MicroPEM = 7.61 µg/m3, stderr = 1.08, SidePak = 11.85 µg/m3, stderr = 0.83) or in restaurants (MicroPEM = 7.48 µg/m3, stderr = 0.39, SidePak = 24.93 µg/m3, stderr = 0.82), and lowest when participants were exercising indoors (MicroPEM = 4.78 µg/m3, stderr = 0.23, SidePak = 5.63 µg/m3, stderr = 0.08). Mean PM2.5 at the 15 fixed locations, as measured by the SidePak, ranged from 4.71 µg/m3 (stderr = 0.23) to 12.38 µg/m3 (stderr = 0.45). By comparison, mean 24-h PM2.5 measured at the centralized outdoor monitor ranged from 2.7 to 6.7 µg/m3 during the study period. The range of average PM2.5 exposure levels estimated for each participant using the interpolated fixed-location data was 2.83 to 19.26 µg/m3 (mean = 8.3, stderr = 1.4). These estimated levels were compared with average exposure from personal samples. The fixed-location monitoring strategy was useful in identifying high air pollution microclimates throughout the county. For 7 of 10 subjects, the fixed-location monitoring strategy more closely approximated individuals’ 24-hr breathing zone exposures than did the centralized outdoor monitor. Highlights are: Individual PM2.5 exposure levels vary extensively by activity, location and time of day; fixed-location sampling more closely approximated individual exposures than a centralized outdoor monitor; and small, personal exposure monitors provide added utility for individuals, researchers, and public health professionals seeking to more accurately identify air pollution microclimates. Implications: Personal air pollution monitoring technology is advancing rapidly. Currently, personal monitors are primarily used in research settings, but could they also support government networks of centralized outdoor monitors? In this study, we found differences in performance and practicality for two personal monitors in different monitoring scenarios. We also found that personal monitors used to collect outdoor area samples were effective at finding pollution microclimates, and more closely approximated actual individual exposure than a central monitor. Though more research is needed, there is strong potential that personal exposure monitors can improve existing monitoring networks.