Comparison of air pollution exposure for five commuting modes in Sydney – car, train, bus, bicycle and walking

Abstract

Issue addressed:International studies have consistently found that exposure to air pollutants is higher inside cars than outside. However, few studies have compared personal exposure to air pollutants by travel mode focusing on usual travel patterns. Objectives:To compare the exposure to benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) for commuters in central Sydney for five different commuting modes.Methods: Forty-four volunteers were recruited into one of five travel mode groups: car, train, bus, bicycle and walking. Each participant travelled for at least 30 minutes by their usual mode of travel to the area around Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, in central Sydney. Each participant wore BTEX and NO 2 passive sampling apparatus during their travel to and from work for two weeks, following specific instructions to measure personal exposure. Results:The highest pollutant levels for all four BTEX pollutants were found for car commuters. Train commuters recorded the lowest pollutant levels for all four BTEX pollutants and NO 2 , and these levels were significantly lower than that for car commuters. Commuting by bus recorded the highest levels for NO 2 . Walking and cycling commuters had significantly lower levels of exposure to benzene compared with car commuters and significantly lower levels of NO 2 than bus commuters. Conclusions:The results of this study are consistent with the findings of studies in other cities and found elevated levels of exposure to motor vehicle-related pollutants in roadway microenvironments. Strategies that encourage commuting by train, walking and cycling should be supported as this reduces population exposure to motor vehicle-related pollutants.

Are Malaysians eager to use their cars less? Forecasting mode choice behaviors under new policies

“…Based on reviewed literature and expert consultations, the use of the two public transport-modes reduces the number of unhealthy days relative to the drive-alone option (see e.g Chertok et al, 2004;Puchalsky, 2005;O'Toole, 2008). However, among the two public transport modes, the commute by train is considered healthier personally and environmentallyfriendly.…”

Utilizing Crowdsourced Data for Studies of Cycling and Air Pollution Exposure: A Case Study Using Strava Data

“…The impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution on health is an important issue in transport and health [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Typically, impacts of active travel (cycling and walking) and inactive travel (traveling by car, bus or train) on health are compared [22,23,24,25,26,27].…”

Review of Urban Bicyclists' Intake and Uptake of Traffic-Related Air Pollution

“…Bicyclists sometimes have lower exposure concentrations than motorized modes, especially when they use facilities that are separated from traffic Adams, Nieuwenhuijsen, Colvile, Older, & Kendall, 2002;Boogaard, Borgman, Kamminga, & Hoek, 2009;Chertok, Voukelatos, Sheppeard, & Rissel, 2004;De Nazelle et al, 2012;Dons, Int Panis, Van Poppel, Theunis, & Wets, 2012;Kaur et al, 2007;Kingham, Longley, Salmond, Pattinson, & Shrestha, 2013;Kingham, Meaton, Sheard, & Lawrenson, 1998;Knibbs et al, 2011;McNabola, Broderick, & Gill, 2008;van Wijnen, Verhoeff, Jans, & Bruggen, 1995). But modal comparison studies have also found insignificant differences in concentrations by mode, significantly higher bicyclist exposure concentrations than other modes, or inconsistent results by pollutant, location, or time of day (Boogaard et al, 2009;Chertok et al, 2004;De Nazelle et al, 2012;Int Panis et al, 2010;Kaur & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2009;Kingham et al, 2013;Nwokoro et al, 2012;Quiros, Lee, Wang, & Zhu, 2013;Ragettli et al, 2013;Waldman, Weiss, & Articola, 1977;Yu et al, 2012). Likely causes of inconsistent results across studies include differences in the proximity and intensity of motor vehicle traffic, varying availability and use of bicycle facilities, and instrumentation/sampling differences (see Supplemental Material for information on study methods).…”