Centralized outdoor measurements of fine particulate matter as a surrogate of personal exposure for homogeneous populations

Difference in ambient-personal exposure to PM2.5 and its inflammatory effect in local residents in urban and peri-urban Beijing, China: results of the AIRLESS project

“…China and India where mean ambient PM 2.5 concentration >70 μg m −3 ) usually observed an equal or lower personal exposure levels compared to ambient concentrations, and the P/A ratio of the exposure to PM 2.5 fell within a relatively narrow range of 0.8 to 1.4. 15,26,29,30,35 In line with previous findings of the literature, we show P/A ratios stabilize at 0.4 at increasing ambient concentration.…”

“…The quantification of the personal PM 2.5 exposure and ambient PM 2.5 concentration at the same time has been investigated in many studies. 13,15,16,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] In most of the European and American cities where mean ambient PM 2.5 concentration <35 μg m −3 , personal exposure to PM 2.5 was generally higher than ambient levels, with P/A ratios varying from 1.2 to 4.2. 13,16,25,27,31,33,34 By contrast, the studies carried out in highly polluted areas (e.g.…”

“…[12][13][14] Although portable instruments are available for such purposes, the applications of such devices into epidemiological studies remain limited due to the concerns of the performance of the monitors, along with the high compliance from participants. 15 Therefore, as a proxy of personal exposure, ambient PM 2.5 measurement based on ground site observations, or integrated output from satellite and chemical transport models are often used in epidemiological studies. 9,10,15 Mounting evidence has shown the actual personal exposure may differ from the ambient levels due to the large modification effects of building envelopes, local sources and variations of microenvironment settings and individual behavioral patterns activities.…”

“…15 Therefore, as a proxy of personal exposure, ambient PM 2.5 measurement based on ground site observations, or integrated output from satellite and chemical transport models are often used in epidemiological studies. 9,10,15 Mounting evidence has shown the actual personal exposure may differ from the ambient levels due to the large modification effects of building envelopes, local sources and variations of microenvironment settings and individual behavioral patterns activities. 16,17 Few studies have investigated the difference between using personal and ambient exposure, and how much it could bias the associations between exposure to PM 2.5 and health effects.…”

Biases Arising from the Use of Ambient Measurements to Represent Personal Exposure in Evaluating Inflammatory Responses to Fine Particulate Matter: Evidence from a Panel Study in Beijing, China

“…The approaches used for exposure assessment could be an important source of such inconsistencies. , Ideally, the personal PM exposure level of each individual should be quantified to build a reliable data set for investigating the exposure–response relationship in human-based studies. − Portable instruments are available for such purposes, but these methods are labor-intensive and require a high degree of compliance from participants; thus, their application is limited . Instead, ambient PM concentrations obtained from stationary monitoring are often used as a proxy for exposure. ,, Actual personal exposure levels may differ from the ambient levels due to individual activities and microenvironment settings. , However, few studies have systematically evaluated the relationship between ambient and personal PM exposure levels . To what extent using ambient data as a proxy of personal exposure biases the associations between exposure to PM and health effects remains unclear.…”