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

Burrowes V.J.; Piedrahita R.; Pillarisetti A.; Underhill L.J.; Fandiño-Del-Rio M.; Johnson M.; Kephart J.L.; Hartinger S.M.; Steenland K.; Naeher L.; Kearns K.; Peel J.L.; Clark M.L.; Checkley W.; Nambajimana A.; Verma A.; Lovvorn A.; Diaz A.; Papageorghiou A.; Toenjes A.; Quinn A.; Nizam A.; Ryan B.; Young B.; Barr D.; Goodman D.; Canuz E.; Puzzolo E.; McCollum E.; Mollinedo E.; Majorin F.; Ndagijimana F.; Rosa G.; Thangavel G.; Chang H.; Fuentes I.S.P.; Miranda J.J.; Ntivuguruzwa J.D.D.; Uwizeyimana J.; Sarnat J.; Liao J.; McCracken J.; Rosenthal J.; Espinoza J.G.; Campbell J.M.; Balakrishnan K.; Williams K.; Smith K.; Mukhopadhyay K.; Waller L.; Moulton L.; Jaacks L.; Elon L.; Thompson L.; Laws M.; Chiang M.; Howard M.; Crocker M.; Kirby M.; Puttaswamy N.; De Leon O.; Herrera P.; Craik R.; Merrick R.; Sambandam S.; Garg S.; Rajkumar S.; Gupton S.; Hossen S.; Sinharoy S.; Jabbarzadeh S.; Harvey S.; Simkovich S.; Clasen T.; Ramakrishnan U.; Davila-Roman V.G.; Aravindalochanan V.; Chen Y.; Sakas Z. · Indoor Air (2020) · DOI: 10.1111/ina.12638

Resumen

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.

Instituciones: Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia