Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada.
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada; Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W2 1NY, UK.
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Dec 15;800:149421. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149421. Epub 2021 Aug 6.
The Chinese government is replacing high-polluting, household coal heating stoves with electricity- and natural gas-powered heaters to improve ambient air quality. The evaluation of the intervention impact on outdoor PM and personal exposure in community level are in their initial stages. We compared outdoor air pollution and personal exposure in two neighboring communities (~2 km) in northern China with contrasting household fuel use patterns: one where residents primarily used coal for cooking and heating ("coal village") and one where natural gas was the dominant fuel ("gas village"). We collected 24-h outdoor gravimetric PM samples in each village and concurrently measured 48-h integrated exposures among 71 participants from 41 and 30 households in the coal and gas villages, respectively. PM samples were analyzed for mass and chemical composition. Daily outdoor PM concentrations in the coal village (mean ± standard deviation: 109 ± 41 μg/m) were, on average, 1.3 ± 0.2 times higher than in the gas village (88 ± 38 μg/m). However, personal PM exposures were lower in the coal village (116 ± 121 μg/m versus 156 ± 106 μg/m). PM species that can serve as tracers for residential coal combustion (e.g., S, Se, Zn, Pb, etc.) and dust (Al, Ca, Mg, Fe, Si and Ti) were higher in the coal village, and the proportion of personal PM of outdoor origin in the coal village was nearly 2 times higher than the gas village. Our results suggest that ambient PM and its chemical composition can vary at relatively small spatial scales and may reflect community-level differences in the household energy use. However, personal PM exposures may not mirror between-village differences in outdoor air pollution if only PM mass is evaluated. Individual chemical composition of PM exposure can provide important insight in future studies on the effectiveness of source-targeted air quality interventions.
中国政府正在用电力和天然气取暖器取代高污染的家用煤炭取暖炉，以改善环境空气质量。评估干预措施对社区层面室外 PM 和个人暴露的影响仍处于初期阶段。我们比较了中国北方两个相邻社区（相距约 2 公里）的室外空气污染和个人暴露情况，这两个社区的家庭燃料使用模式存在差异：一个社区居民主要用煤炭做饭和取暖（“煤炭村”），另一个社区天然气是主要燃料（“天然气村”）。我们在每个村庄收集了 24 小时的室外重力 PM 样本，并分别在煤炭村和天然气村的 41 户和 30 户家庭中，对 71 名参与者进行了 48 小时的综合暴露测量。PM 样本进行了质量和化学成分分析。煤炭村（平均值±标准差：109±41μg/m）的日平均室外 PM 浓度比天然气村（88±38μg/m）高 1.3±0.2 倍。然而，煤炭村的个人 PM 暴露水平较低（116±121μg/m 比 156±106μg/m）。可作为住宅煤炭燃烧示踪剂的 PM 物质（如 S、Se、Zn、Pb 等）和灰尘（Al、Ca、Mg、Fe、Si 和 Ti）在煤炭村的含量更高，煤炭村个人 PM 中源自室外的比例几乎是天然气村的两倍。我们的研究结果表明，在相对较小的空间尺度上，环境 PM 及其化学成分可能会发生变化，并反映社区层面家庭能源使用的差异。然而，如果仅评估 PM 质量，个人 PM 暴露可能无法反映村庄之间的室外空气污染差异。PM 暴露的个体化学成分分析可以为未来针对空气污染源的空气质量干预措施的有效性研究提供重要的见解。
