Comparison of next‐generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru. (23rd January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Burrowes, Vanessa J.; Piedrahita, Ricardo; Pillarisetti, Ajay; Underhill, Lindsay J.; Fandiño‐Del‐Rio, Magdalena; Johnson, Michael; Kephart, Josiah L.; Hartinger, Stella M.; Steenland, Kyle; Naeher, Luke; Kearns, Katie; Peel, Jennifer L.; Clark, Maggie L.; Checkley, William
• Other Names: Nambajimana Abidan investigator.; Verma Amit investigator.; Lovvorn Amy investigator.; Diaz Anaité investigator.; Papageorghiou Aris investigator.; Toenjes Ashley investigator.; Quinn Ashlinn investigator.; Nizam Azhar investigator.; Ryan Barry investigator.; Young Bonnie investigator.; Barr Dana investigator.; Goodman Dina investigator.; Canuz Eduardo investigator.; Puzzolo Elisa investigator.; McCollum Eric investigator.; Mollinedo Erick investigator.; Majorin Fiona investigator.; Ndagijimana Florien investigator.; Rosa Ghislaine investigator.; Thangavel Gurusamy investigator.; Chang Howard investigator.; Fuentes Irma Sayury Pineda investigator.; Miranda J. Jaime investigator.; Ntivuguruzwa Jean de Dieu investigator.; Uwizeyimana Jean investigator.; Peel Jennifer investigator.; Sarnat Jeremy investigator.; Liao Jiawen investigator.; McCracken John investigator.; Rosenthal Joshua investigator.; Espinoza Juan Gabriel investigator.; Campbell Julia McPeek investigator.; Balakrishnan Kalpana investigator.; Williams Kendra investigator.; Smith Kirk investigator.; Mukhopadhyay Krishnendu investigator.; Waller Lance investigator.; Moulton Lawrence investigator.; Jaacks Lindsay investigator.; Elon Lisa investigator.; Thompson Lisa investigator.; Laws Margaret investigator.; Chiang Marilú investigator.; Howard Marjorie investigator.; Crocker Mary investigator.; Kirby Miles investigator.; Puttaswamy Naveen investigator.; De Leon Oscar investigator.; Herrera Phabiola investigator.; Craik Rachel investigator.; Merrick Rachel investigator.; Sambandam Sankar investigator.; Garg Sarada investigator.; Rajkumar Sarah investigator.; Gupton Savannah investigator.; Hossen Shakir investigator.; Sinharoy Sheela investigator.; Jabbarzadeh Shirin investigator.; Harvey Steven investigator.; Simkovich Suzanne investigator.; Clasen Thomas investigator.; Ramakrishnan Usha investigator.; Davila‐Roman Victor G investigator.; Aravindalochanan Vigneswari investigator.; Chen Yunyun investigator.; Sakas Zoe investigator.;
• Is Part Of: Indoor air. Volume 30:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 445
• Page End: 458
• Publication Date: 2020-01-23
• Subjects: exposure assessment -- fine particulate matter -- household air pollution -- instrument validation -- lower‐ and middle‐income countries -- personal exposure; Indoor air pollution -- Periodicals; Sick building syndrome -- Periodicals; Ventilation -- Periodicals; 613.5
• DOI: 10.1111/ina.12638
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-6947

Abstract

Abstract: 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/m 3 vs UPAS mean difference of 93.9 µg/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 µg/m 3 vs UPAS mean difference of 65.4 µg/m 3 ) and personal exposure samples (ECM mean difference of −3.8 µg/m 3 vs UPAS mean difference of −12.9 µg/m 3 ). Both the ECM and UPAS produced comparable measurements when compared against a cyclone/pump setup.