Elemental analysis of infant airborne particulate exposures

Abstract

Air pollution is hypothesized to have negative impacts on infant pulmonary health because of infants' increased rates of respiration and ongoing lung development. The severity and type of impact may differ depending on elemental concentrations. We conducted a study of 21 infants <6 months old whose parents carried a small personal particulate monitoring device (RTI MicroPEM) and GPS unit with the infant for 7 days in January and February 2015. The study area was Utah County, UT, USA. Real-time particulate exposure levels, as well as optical density and elemental analysis of the particulate matter (PM), were compared with levels from an outdoor stationary monitor. Infants spent an average of 87.4% of their time indoors. PM levels varied widely by infant and time of day (average=19.07 μg/m, range=0.63-170.25 μg/m). Infant particulate exposures were not well approximated by the outdoor monitor. Infants had lower exposures to Sb, Mn, Pb, W and Fe than the outdoor monitor and higher exposures to Cd, Ni and Na. Differences were most pronounced for Na. Brown carbon was only detected by personal monitors and not by the outdoor monitor. Further research is needed to understand the potential implications of indoor elemental exposures on early respiratory development.

Impact of road proximity on infants and children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia

“…General population studies of infants and children have only seen a modestly increased risk of hospitalization for respiratory infections associated with TRAP or outdoor air pollution . In addition, infants with BPD may not have the same degree of TRAP exposure as older children and adults with asthma as infants spend over almost 90% of their time indoors …”

“…We also did not capture the presence of other sources of air pollutants, such as fossil fuel power stations. In addition, most infants and young children spend a high proportion of time indoors, and while we did assess for secondhand smoke exposure, we did not assess for other forms of indoor air pollution, such as combustion byproducts from gas stoves or heat. Other studies completed locally in Baltimore have shown that indoor levels of pollution are often higher than simultaneously measured ambient concentrations .…”

“…21,22 In addition, infants with BPD may not have the same degree of TRAP exposure as older children and adults with asthma as infants spend over almost 90% of their time indoors. 23 It has also been demonstrated that early childhood illnesses and exposures can have effects on the respiratory system that can last ) and so there is potential for exposure misclassification. 10 There are however several other studies that have used road proximity as a surrogate for measuring traffic-related pollution exposure and health outcomes.…”

“…[28][29][30] We also did not capture the presence of other sources of air pollutants, such as fossil fuel power stations. In addition, most infants and young children spend a high proportion of time indoors, 23 and while we did assess for secondhand smoke exposure, we did not assess for other Odds ratios for respiratory outcomes (dependent variable) given reported proximity to major roadway (independent continuous variable) were generated through logistic regression and adjusted for potential confounders, including race or ethnicity, (log of) population density, (log of) median household income, and age at the time of respiratory outcomes questionnaire completion. All regressions were clustered by subject as subjects may have completed separate forms at serial visits.…”

Comparison of next‐generation portable pollution monitors to measure exposure to PM 2.5 from household air pollution in Puno, Peru

“…However, past studies have sought to evaluate both laboratory and field performance of just one of these instruments or past versions of the instruments compared to commonly used gravimetric instruments. 18,25,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Although there are no evaluation studies to date that have been conducted on the current version of the ECM, except for a pilot study to compare the ECM to the MicroPEM, 40 in rural India. Correlation between the two instruments was also found to be strong in this preliminary field study (Pearson's r = 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.95).…”