Assessing the Relationship between Personal Particulate and Gaseous Exposures of Senior Citizens Living in Baltimore, MD

ABSTRACT

We conducted a multi-pollutant exposure study in Baltimore, MD, in which 15 non-smoking older adult subjects (>64 years old) wore a multi-pollutant sampler for 12 days during the summer of 1998 and the winter of 1999. The sampler measured simultaneous 24-hr integrated personal exposures to PM₂₅, PM₁₀, SO₄ ^2-, O₃, NO₂, SO₂, and exhaust-related VOCs.

Results of this study showed that longitudinal associations between ambient PM_2.5 concentrations and corresponding personal exposures tended to be high in the summer (median Spearman's r = 0.74) and low in the winter (median Spearman's r = 0.25). Indoor ventilation was an important determinant of personal PM_2.5 exposures and resulting personal-ambient associations. Associations between personal PM₂₅ exposures and corresponding ambient concentrations were strongest for well-ventilated indoor environments and decreased with ventilation. This decrease was attributed to the increasing influence of indoor PM_{2 5} sources. Evidence for this was provided by SO₄ ^2-measurements, which can be thought of as a tracer for ambient PM₂₅. For SO₄ ^2-, personal-ambient associations were strong even in poorly ventilated indoor environments, suggesting that personal exposures to PM_2.5 of ambient origin are strongly associated with corresponding ambient concentrations. The results also indicated that the contribution of indoor PM_2.5 sources to personal PM_2.5 exposures was lowest when individuals spent the majority of their time in well-ventilated indoor environments.

Results also indicate that the potential for confounding by PM_2.5 co-pollutants is limited, despite significant correlations among ambient pollutant concentrations. In contrast to ambient concentrations, PM_2.5 exposures were not significantly correlated with personal exposures to PM_2.5-10, PM_2.5 of non-ambient origin, O₃, NO₂, and SO₂. Since a confounder must be associated with the exposure of interest, these results provide evidence that the effects observed in the PM_2.5 epidemiologic studies are unlikely to be due to confounding by the PM_2.5 co-pollutants measured in this study.