Qiu Zhaowen, Cao Huihui
School of Automobile, Chang'an University, Chang'an Road, Xi'an, 710064 Shaanxi China.
J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2020 May 18;18(2):451-462. doi: 10.1007/s40201-020-00473-0. eCollection 2020 Dec.
To investigate commuter exposures to particulate matter (PM) in urban public transportation buses and subways, PM concentrations were simultaneously monitored for these two modes, over the same routes, in Xi'an, China.
The microenvironment variabilities in each stage of the total trip were analyzed. Exposure doses for the different commute processes were estimated based on the heart rates of volunteers. Experimental measurements were taken during peak traffic hours in July and October (summer and autumn) on two typical commute routes, for a total of 36 trips. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the effects of different variables on commuter exposures.
On the same route, the average PM exposure concentration of bus commuters was higher than those of subway commuters. For example, on Route 1 in the case study, the average PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 exposure concentrations of bus commuters were 71.6%, 19%, and 10.4% higher, respectively, than those of subway commuters. In the ground transportation mode, the exposure concentration of bus commuters was affected by the type of vehicle. Particle concentrations were significantly higher inside compressed natural gas (CNG) buses, than in pure electric (PE) buses, and in summer, the PM10 concentration in a CNG bus was 4.3 times higher than that in a PE bus. In a CNG bus, commuters in the back door area suffered the highest PM10 exposure concentration (179.6 μg/m), followed by those in the rear of the carriage (142.8 μg/m), and then those in the front door area (105.4 μg/m).
Commuters' avoidance of ground traffic sources, effective ventilation systems in buses, and the use of screens in subway systems can all help to lower the PM exposure of commuters. For all the modes of transportation in our study, the hottest spots for PM exposure appeared in the period when commuters were waiting for transit vehicles to arrive.
为调查城市公共交通巴士和地铁上通勤者接触颗粒物(PM)的情况,在中国西安对这两种交通方式在相同路线上的PM浓度进行了同步监测。
分析了整个行程各阶段的微环境变化。根据志愿者的心率估算不同通勤过程的暴露剂量。在7月和10月(夏季和秋季)的高峰交通时段,在两条典型通勤路线上进行了实验测量,共36次行程。采用单因素方差分析来分析不同变量对通勤者暴露的影响。
在同一路线上,巴士通勤者的平均PM暴露浓度高于地铁通勤者。例如,在案例研究中的1号路线上,巴士通勤者的平均PM10、PM2.5和PM1暴露浓度分别比地铁通勤者高71.6%、19%和10.4%。在地面交通方式中,巴士通勤者的暴露浓度受车辆类型影响。压缩天然气(CNG)巴士内的颗粒物浓度明显高于纯电动(PE)巴士,夏季CNG巴士内的PM10浓度比PE巴士高4.3倍。在CNG巴士中,后门区域的通勤者PM10暴露浓度最高(179.6μg/m),其次是车厢后部的通勤者(142.8μg/m),然后是前门区域的通勤者(105.4μg/m)。
通勤者避开地面交通源、巴士上有效的通风系统以及地铁系统中使用屏蔽设施都有助于降低通勤者的PM暴露。在我们研究的所有交通方式中,PM暴露的热点出现在通勤者等待中转车辆到达的时间段。