TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of next-generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru
AU - HAPIN investigators
AU - Burrowes, Vanessa J.
AU - Piedrahita, Ricardo
AU - Pillarisetti, Ajay
AU - Underhill, Lindsay J.
AU - Fandiño-Del-Rio, Magdalena
AU - Johnson, Michael
AU - Kephart, Josiah L.
AU - Hartinger, Stella M.
AU - Steenland, Kyle
AU - Naeher, Luke
AU - Kearns, Katie
AU - Peel, Jennifer L.
AU - Clark, Maggie L.
AU - Checkley, William
AU - Nambajimana, Abidan
AU - Verma, Amit
AU - Lovvorn, Amy
AU - Diaz, Anaité
AU - Papageorghiou, Aris
AU - Toenjes, Ashley
AU - Quinn, Ashlinn
AU - Nizam, Azhar
AU - Ryan, Barry
AU - Young, Bonnie
AU - Barr, Dana
AU - Goodman, Dina
AU - Canuz, Eduardo
AU - Puzzolo, Elisa
AU - McCollum, Eric
AU - Mollinedo, Erick
AU - Majorin, Fiona
AU - Ndagijimana, Florien
AU - Rosa, Ghislaine
AU - Thangavel, Gurusamy
AU - Chang, Howard
AU - Fuentes, Irma Sayury Pineda
AU - Miranda, J. Jaime
AU - Ntivuguruzwa, Jean de Dieu
AU - Uwizeyimana, Jean
AU - Peel, Jennifer
AU - Sarnat, Jeremy
AU - Liao, Jiawen
AU - McCracken, John
AU - Rosenthal, Joshua
AU - Espinoza, Juan Gabriel
AU - Campbell, Julia Mc Peek
AU - Balakrishnan, Kalpana
AU - Williams, Kendra
AU - Smith, Kirk
AU - Davila-Roman, Victor G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors. Indoor Air published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2020/5/1
Y1 - 2020/5/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - exposure assessment
KW - fine particulate matter
KW - household air pollution
KW - instrument validation
KW - lower- and middle-income countries
KW - personal exposure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078657173&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/ina.12638
DO - 10.1111/ina.12638
M3 - Article
C2 - 31885107
AN - SCOPUS:85078657173
SN - 0905-6947
VL - 30
SP - 445
EP - 458
JO - Indoor air
JF - Indoor air
IS - 3
ER -