Personal Exposure of 80 Retired Elders and Their Residential Indoor, Outdoor Pm10 Concentrations Measured in Tianjin, China

Yating Liu,Zhipeng Hai,Yan You,Jiefeng Zhang,Jian Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000392344.61838.e7
2011-01-01
Epidemiology
Abstract:PP-30-041 Background/Aims: The primary goal of this study was to find the relationship between indoor/outdoor particulate matter (PM) concentrations and actual human PM exposures within a susceptible (elderly) subpopulation. Methods: Between August and December 2009, concurrent 24-hour average indoor, personal, and a limited number of outdoor-at-home PM10 concentrations were assessed based on an exhaustive study performed in Tianjin. A group of 80 elderly person (33 females, 48 males; age: 55–75 years) living in the metropolitan areas continuously carried a rucksack contained an active PM10 sampler. Data about home indoor sources and time-activity pattern were collected by questionnaires. In parallel, continuous daily ambient PM10 mass concentrations at a central community site were also measured. Results: For each home in most case, personal (arithmetic mean, AM = 193 μg/m3; SD = 107 μg/m3; n = 150; range: 16–651 μg/m3) and outdoor-at-home (AM = 204 μg/m3; SD = 211 μg/m3; n = 151; range: 9–1124 μg/m3) PM10 concentrations were higher than the corresponding indoor level (AM = 116 μg/m3; SD = 76 μg/m3; n = 160; range: 16–630 μg/m3). In homes without environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) sources, PM10 indoor to outdoor ratios amounted to approximately 0.56 while the average indoor–outdoor ratios influenced by ETS were 0.49. The participants (14.8%) that were exposed to ETS at any time during the 24-hour sampling period had a little higher personal exposures (AM = 203 μg/m3) than nonsmoking participants (AM = 195 μg/m3). Larger variations were found in outdoor than personal and indoor, probably because of the relatively intense variations of environment conditions. On days with paired samples (n = 20), the difference between outdoor and outdoor-at-home (mean difference: 29 μg/m3; P = 0.503) exposure was ambiguous. Conclusion: More than 24% of study subjects were affected by high level of PM10 pollution (>250 μg/m3). Across all households and individuals, the personal-outdoor, personal-indoor, and indoor-outdoor Pearson correlation coefficient were 0.12, 0.20, and 0.37, respectively. The result was consistent with the time-activity pattern studies. On average, these elderly persons spent 85.2% of their time indoors, so the personal-indoor correlation coefficient was a little higher than the personal-outdoor correlation coefficient.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?