Logo image
Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru

HAPIN Investigators, Vanessa J. Burrowes, Ricardo Piedrahita, Ajay Pillarisetti, Lindsay J. Underhill, Magdalena Fandino-Del-Rio, Michael Johnson, Josiah L. Kephart, Stella M. Hartinger, Kyle Steenland, …
Indoor air, v 30(3), pp 445-458
May 2020
PMID: 31885107
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12638View
Published, Version of Record (VoR) Open

Abstract

Construction & Building Technology Engineering, Environmental Life Sciences & Biomedicine Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Science & Technology Engineering Technology
Assessment of personal exposure to PM2.5 is critical for understanding intervention effectiveness and exposure-response relationships in household air pollution studies. In this pilot study, we compared PM2.5 concentrations obtained from two next-generation personal exposure monitors (the Enhanced Children MicroPEM or ECM; and the Ultrasonic Personal Air Sampler or UPAS) to those obtained with a traditional Triplex Cyclone and SKC Air Pump (a gravimetric cyclone/pump sampler). We co-located cyclone/pumps with an ECM and UPAS to obtain 24-hour kitchen concentrations and personal exposure measurements. We measured Spearmen correlations and evaluated agreement using the Bland-Altman method. We obtained 215 filters from 72 ECM and 71 UPAS co-locations. Overall, the ECM and the UPAS had similar correlation (ECM rho = 0.91 vs UPAS rho = 0.88) and agreement (ECM mean difference of 121.7 mu g/m(3) vs UPAS mean difference of 93.9 mu g/m(3)) with overlapping confidence intervals when compared against the cyclone/pump. When adjusted for the limit of detection, agreement between the devices and the cyclone/pump was also similar for all samples (ECM mean difference of 68.8 mu g/m(3) vs UPAS mean difference of 65.4 mu g/m(3)) and personal exposure samples (ECM mean difference of -3.8 mu g/m(3) vs UPAS mean difference of -12.9 mu g/m(3)). Both the ECM and UPAS produced comparable measurements when compared against a cyclone/pump setup.

Metrics

7 Record Views
14 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being
#11 Sustainable Cities and Communities

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Construction & Building Technology
Engineering, Environmental
Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
Logo image