Assessment of air pollution and air quality perception mismatch using mobility-based real-time exposure.

Air pollution poses a threat to human health. Public perceptions of air pollution are important for individual self-protection and policy-making. Given the uncertainty faced by residence-based exposure (RB) measurements, this study measures individuals' real-time mobility-based (MB) exposures and perceptions of air pollution by considering people's daily movement. It explores how contextual uncertainties may influence the disparities in perceived air quality by taking into account RB and MB environmental factors. In addition, we explore factors that are related to the mismatch between people's perceived air quality and actual air pollution exposure. Using K-means clustering to divide the PM2.5 values into two groups, a mismatch happens when the perceived air quality is poor but the air pollution level is lower than 15.536µg/m3 and when the perceived air quality is good but the air pollution level is higher than 15.608µg/m3. The results show that there is a mismatch between air pollution exposure and perception of air pollution. People with low income are exposed to higher air pollution. Unemployed people and people with more serious mental health symptoms (e.g., depression) have a higher chance of accurately assessing air pollution (e.g., perceiving air quality as poor when air pollution levels are high). Older people and those with a higher MB open space density tend to underestimate air pollution. Students tend to perceive air quality as good. People who are surrounded by higher MB transportation land-use density and green space density tend to perceive air quality as poor. The results can help policymakers to increase public awareness of high air pollution areas, and consider the health effects of landscapes during planning.

Air pollution perception bias: Mismatch between air pollution exposure and perception of air quality in real-time contexts.

Air pollution perception biases hinder the public's awareness of actual air quality. Past studies that examined the association and mismatch between actual and perceived air quality neglected individuals' dynamic exposure and their activity, travel, spatial, temporal, and social contexts. Using data collected with real-time air pollutant sensors and ecological momentary assessment (EMA), this study investigated the association and mismatch between momentary air pollution exposure and perceived air quality. It also examined how activity type, travel mode, spatial and temporal contexts, and social factors contribute to this disparity. The results show that exposure to air pollution is significantly higher in residential areas (1.777 µg/m3) and transportation land-use areas (2.863 µg/m3) compared to commercial areas. Exposure in the evening is 1.308 µg/m3 higher than in the afternoon. Working or studying activities are associated with 2.863 µg/m3 lower exposure, and individuals perceive air quality as good when working or studying and in residential areas. Conversely, individuals assess air quality as poor in railway travel contexts and being accompanied by friends. This study also reveals the nonstationary association between air pollution exposure and perceived air quality. The odds of underestimating air pollution are 1.8-2.7 times as high as that in residential areas and 2.1 to 2.6 times that in transportation land-use areas when compared to commercial areas. Implementing targeted mitigation measures in these contexts can enhance public awareness of air pollution.

Field Evaluation and Calibration of Low-Cost Air Pollution Sensors for Environmental Exposure Research.

This paper seeks to evaluate and calibrate data collected by low-cost particulate matter (PM) sensors in different environments and using different aggregated temporal units (i.e., 5-s, 1-min, 10-min, 30 min intervals). We first collected PM concentrations (i.e., PM1, PM2.5, and PM10) data in five different environments (i.e., indoor and outdoor of an office building, a train platform and lobby of a subway station, and a seaside location) in Hong Kong, using five AirBeam2 sensors as the low-cost sensors and a TSI DustTrak DRX Aerosol Monitor 8533 as the reference sensor. By comparing the collected PM concentrations, we found high linearity and correlation between the data reported by the AirBeam2 sensors in different environments. Furthermore, the results suggest that the accuracy and bias of the PM data reported by the AirBeam2 sensors are affected by rainy weather and environments with high humidity and a high level of hygroscopic salts (i.e., a seaside location). In addition, increasing the aggregation level of the temporal units (i.e., from 5-s to 30 min intervals) increases the correlation between the PM concentrations obtained by the AirBeam2 sensors, while it does not significantly improve the accuracy and bias of the data. Lastly, our results indicate that using a machine learning model (i.e., random forest) for the calibration of PM concentrations collected on sunny days generates better results than those obtained with multiple linear models. These findings have important implications for researchers when designing environmental exposure studies based on low-cost PM sensors.