Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru
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 C...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019
|
| _version_ | 1797099832501862400 |
|---|---|
| author | Burrowes, VJ Piedrahita, R Pillarisetti, A Underhill, LJ Fandiño-Del-Rio, M Johnson, M Kephart, JL Hartinger, SM Steenland, K Naeher, L Kearns, K Peel, JL Clark, ML Checkley, W Craik, RH HAPIN Investigators |
| author_facet | Burrowes, VJ Piedrahita, R Pillarisetti, A Underhill, LJ Fandiño-Del-Rio, M Johnson, M Kephart, JL Hartinger, SM Steenland, K Naeher, L Kearns, K Peel, JL Clark, ML Checkley, W Craik, RH HAPIN Investigators |
| author_sort | Burrowes, VJ |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | 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 ρ = 0.91 vs UPAS ρ = 0.88) and agreement (ECM mean difference of 121.7 µg/m3 vs UPAS mean difference of 93.9 µg/m3 ) 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 µg/m3 vs UPAS mean difference of 65.4 µg/m3 ) and personal exposure samples (ECM mean difference of -3.8 µg/m3 vs UPAS mean difference of -12.9 µg/m3 ). Both the ECM and UPAS produced comparable measurements when compared against a cyclone/pump setup. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:29:13Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:e1a12945-63f5-46c0-b9c7-d551674d48d9 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:29:13Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:e1a12945-63f5-46c0-b9c7-d551674d48d92022-03-27T09:55:55ZComparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, PeruJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:e1a12945-63f5-46c0-b9c7-d551674d48d9EnglishSymplectic ElementsWiley2019Burrowes, VJPiedrahita, RPillarisetti, AUnderhill, LJFandiño-Del-Rio, MJohnson, MKephart, JLHartinger, SMSteenland, KNaeher, LKearns, KPeel, JLClark, MLCheckley, WCraik, RHHAPIN InvestigatorsAssessment 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 ρ = 0.91 vs UPAS ρ = 0.88) and agreement (ECM mean difference of 121.7 µg/m3 vs UPAS mean difference of 93.9 µg/m3 ) 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 µg/m3 vs UPAS mean difference of 65.4 µg/m3 ) and personal exposure samples (ECM mean difference of -3.8 µg/m3 vs UPAS mean difference of -12.9 µg/m3 ). Both the ECM and UPAS produced comparable measurements when compared against a cyclone/pump setup. |
| spellingShingle | Burrowes, VJ Piedrahita, R Pillarisetti, A Underhill, LJ Fandiño-Del-Rio, M Johnson, M Kephart, JL Hartinger, SM Steenland, K Naeher, L Kearns, K Peel, JL Clark, ML Checkley, W Craik, RH HAPIN Investigators Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru |
| title | Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru |
| title_full | Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru |
| title_short | Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru |
| title_sort | comparison of next generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to pm2 5 from household air pollution in puno peru |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT burrowesvj comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT piedrahitar comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT pillarisettia comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT underhilllj comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT fandinodelriom comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT johnsonm comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT kephartjl comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT hartingersm comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT steenlandk comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT naeherl comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT kearnsk comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT peeljl comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT clarkml comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT checkleyw comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT craikrh comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu AT hapininvestigators comparisonofnextgenerationportablepollutionmonitorstomeasureexposuretopm25fromhouseholdairpollutioninpunoperu |