Simon Matthew C, Hudda Neelakshi, Naumova Elena N, Levy Jonathan I, Brugge Doug, Durant John L
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University, 200 College Avenue, Medford, MA 02155, USA.
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, 150 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Atmos Environ (1994). 2017 Nov;169:113-127. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 4.
Traffic-related ultrafine particles (UFP; <100 nanometers diameter) are ubiquitous in urban air. While studies have shown that UFP are toxic, epidemiological evidence of health effects, which is needed to inform risk assessment at the population scale, is limited due to challenges of accurately estimating UFP exposures. Epidemiologic studies often use empirical models to estimate UFP exposures; however, the monitoring strategies upon which the models are based have varied between studies. Our study compares particle number concentrations (PNC; a proxy for UFP) measured by three different monitoring approaches (central-site, short-term residential-site, and mobile on-road monitoring) in two study areas in metropolitan Boston (MA, USA). Our objectives were to quantify ambient PNC differences between the three monitoring platforms, compare the temporal patterns and the spatial heterogeneity of PNC between the monitoring platforms, and identify factors that affect correlations across the platforms. We collected >12,000 hours of measurements at the central sites, 1,000 hours of measurements at each of 20 residential sites in the two study areas, and >120 hours of mobile measurements over the course of ~1 year in each study area. Our results show differences between the monitoring strategies: mean one-minute PNC on-roads were higher (64,000 and 32,000 particles/cm in Boston and Chelsea, respectively) compared to central-site measurements (23,000 and 19,000 particles/cm) and both were higher than at residences (14,000 and 15,000 particles/cm). Temporal correlations and spatial heterogeneity also differed between the platforms. Temporal correlations were generally highest between central and residential sites, and lowest between central-site and on-road measurements. We observed the greatest spatial heterogeneity across monitoring platforms during the morning rush hours (06:00-09:00) and the lowest during the overnight hours (18:00-06:00). Longer averaging times (days and hours vs. minutes) increased temporal correlations (Pearson correlations were 0.69 and 0.60 vs. 0.39 in Boston; 0.71 and 0.61 vs. 0.45 in Chelsea) and reduced spatial heterogeneity (coefficients of divergence were 0.24 and 0.29 vs. 0.33 in Boston; 0.20 and 0.27 vs. 0.31 in Chelsea). Our results suggest that combining stationary and mobile monitoring may lead to improved characterization of UFP in urban areas and thereby lead to improved exposure assignment for epidemiology studies.
与交通相关的超细颗粒物(UFP;直径小于100纳米)在城市空气中普遍存在。虽然研究表明UFP具有毒性,但由于准确估算UFP暴露存在挑战,对于为人群规模的风险评估提供依据所必需的健康影响的流行病学证据有限。流行病学研究通常使用经验模型来估算UFP暴露;然而,不同研究中模型所基于的监测策略各不相同。我们的研究比较了美国马萨诸塞州大波士顿地区两个研究区域中通过三种不同监测方法(中心站点、短期住宅站点和移动道路监测)测量的颗粒物数量浓度(PNC;UFP的替代指标)。我们的目标是量化三个监测平台之间的环境PNC差异,比较监测平台之间PNC的时间模式和空间异质性,并确定影响各平台间相关性的因素。我们在中心站点收集了超过12000小时的测量数据,在两个研究区域的20个住宅站点各收集了1000小时的测量数据,并且在每个研究区域约1年的时间里进行了超过120小时的移动测量。我们的结果显示了监测策略之间的差异:道路上的平均每分钟PNC更高(在波士顿和切尔西分别为64000和32000个颗粒/立方厘米),相比之下中心站点测量值(分别为23000和19000个颗粒/立方厘米),且两者均高于住宅处(分别为14000和15000个颗粒/立方厘米)。各平台之间的时间相关性和空间异质性也有所不同。时间相关性通常在中心站点和住宅站点之间最高,在中心站点和道路测量之间最低。我们观察到在早高峰时段(06:00 - 09:00)各监测平台间的空间异质性最大,而在夜间时段(18:00 - 06:00)最小。更长的平均时间(天数和小时数与分钟数相比)增加了时间相关性(在波士顿,皮尔逊相关系数分别为0.69和0.60,而分钟时为0.39;在切尔西,分别为0.71和0.61,而分钟时为0.45)并降低了空间异质性(在波士顿,离散系数分别为0.24和0.29,而分钟时为0.33;在切尔西,分别为0.20和0.27,而分钟时为0.31)。我们的结果表明,结合固定监测和移动监测可能会改善城市地区UFP的特征描述,从而改善流行病学研究中的暴露分配。