RESUMO
Background: The Reducing Air Pollution in Detroit Intervention Study (RAPIDS) was designed to evaluate cardiovascular health benefits and personal fine particulate matter (particulate matter < 2.5 µm in diameter, PM2.5) exposure reductions via portable air filtration units (PAFs) among older adults in Detroit, Michigan. This double-blind randomized crossover intervention study has shown that, compared to sham, air filtration for 3 days decreased 3-day average brachial systolic blood pressure by 3.2 mmHg. The results also showed that commercially available HEPA-type and true HEPA PAFs mitigated median indoor PM2.5 concentrations by 58% and 65%, respectively. However, to our knowledge, no health intervention study in which a significant positive health effect was observed has also evaluated how outdoor and indoor PM2.5 sources impacted the subjects. With that in mind, detailed characterization of outdoor and indoor PM2.5 samples collected during this study and a source apportionment analysis of those samples using a positive matrix factorization model were completed. The aims of this most recent work were to characterize the indoor and outdoor sources of the PM2.5 this community was exposed to and to assess how effectively commercially available HEPA-type and true HEPA PAFs were able to reduce indoor and outdoor PM2.5 source contributions. Methods: Approximately 24 h daily indoor and outdoor PM2.5 samples were collected on Teflon and Quartz filters from the apartments of 40 study subjects during each 3-day intervention period. These filters were analyzed for mass, carbon, and trace elements. Environmental Protection Agency Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 5.0 was utilized to determine major emission sources that contributed to the outdoor and indoor PM2.5 levels during this study. Results: The major sources of outdoor PM2.5 were secondary aerosols (28%), traffic/urban dust (24%), iron/steel industries (15%), sewage/municipal incineration (10%), and oil combustion/refinery (6%). The major sources of indoor PM2.5 were organic compounds (45%), traffic + sewage/municipal incineration (14%), secondary aerosols (13%), smoking (7%), and urban dust (2%). Infiltration of outdoor PM2.5 for sham, HEPA-type, and true HEPA air filtration was 79 ± 24%, 61 ± 32%, and 51 ± 34%, respectively. Conclusions: The results from our study showed that intervention with PAFs was able to significantly decrease indoor PM2.5 derived from outdoor and indoor PM2.5 sources. The PAFs were also able to significantly reduce the infiltration of outdoor PM2.5. The results of this study provide insights into what types of major PM2.5 sources this community is exposed to and what degree of air quality and systolic blood pressure improvements are possible through the use of commercially available PAFs in a real-world setting.
RESUMO
The adverse health effects of fine particulate matter (PM < 2.5 µm in diameter [PM2.5]) air pollution are well-documented. There is a growing body of evidence that high-efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filtration can reduce indoor PM2.5 concentrations and deliver some health benefits via the reduction of exposure to PM. However, few studies have tested the ability of portable air filtration systems to lower overall personal-level PM2.5 exposures. The Reducing Air Pollution in Detroit Intervention Study (RAPIDS) was designed to evaluate cardiovascular health benefits and personal PM2.5 exposure reductions via indoor portable air filtration systems among senior citizens in Detroit, Michigan. We evaluated the utility of two commercially available high-efficiency (HE: true-HEPA) and low-efficiency (LE: HEPA-type) indoor air filtration to reduce indoor PM2.5 concentrations and personal PM2.5 exposures for 40 participants in a double-blinded randomized crossover intervention. Each participant was subjected to three intervention scenarios: HE, LE, or no filter (control) of three consecutive days each, during which personal, indoor, and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations were measured daily. For mean indoor PM2.5 concentrations, we observed 60 and 52% reductions using HE and LE filters, respectively, relative to no filtration. Personal PM2.5 exposures were reduced by 53 and 31% using HE and LE filters, respectively, when compared with the control scenario. To our knowledge, this is the first indoor air filtration intervention study to examine the effectiveness of both HE and LE filters in reducing personal PM2.5 exposures.
