Population Exposure to Air Pollution

(PEOPLE: Population Exposure to Air Pollutants in Europe)

Emissions and Health UnitInstitute for Environment and Sustainability (IES)

Ispra, Italy

http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int

The PEOPLE behind PEOPLECitizens:

2000 screened and 1000 participated

• Robert Field, Pascual Perez Ballesta, Antonia Baeza, Richard Connolly, Natale Cao, Emile De Saeger and Giovanni De Santi

• Pascal DeMulder and Sandrine Bladt for Brussels (1)

• Ana Cabral, Pedro Ferraz de Abreu, Francisco Ferreira, Hugo Tente, Luisa Nogueira for Lisbon (6)

• Matej Gregoric and Peter Otorepec for Ljubljana (2)

• Emilia Niciu for Bucharest (1)

• Rosalia Fernandez and David Galan for Madrid (1)

• Martin Fitzpatrick, Anne Marie McCarten and Pat Goodman for Dublin (2)

PEOPLE project: Population Exposure to Air Pollutants in Europe

AIRPECO/APHEISAIRPECO/APHEIS

Dublin28 April 2004

Bucharest

Ljubljana27 May 2003

Madrid03 December 2003

Madrid03 December 2003

Anti Smoking Anti Smoking LegislationLegislation

LisbonLisbonBrussels Brussels

22 October 200222 October 2002 Indoor Air QualityIndoor Air Quality

Main PEOPLE Objectives

Assessment of human exposure to air pollution

Air monitoring network design and validation

Support to local, national and European decision making

Improving public awareness of air quality

Comparison between European cities

• Are monitoring sites representative of the air we breath?

• Most monitoring at background sites (Pollutant dependent)

• Less “hot spot” sites (Country dependent)

• Different focus for indoor monitoring

• Influence of personal choices on exposure levels

All air quality roads lead to health impact

A real need for human exposure data

Ambient Air quality surrogate for human exposure?

PEOPLE

PERSONAL EXPOSURE AMBIENT LEVELS

NON SMOKERS INDOOR ENVIRONMENTS OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS

COMMUTER

CONTROL HOMES OTHER LOCATIONS

SMOKERS

PERSONAL CAR

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

WALK OR CYCLING

SCHOOLS

OFFICES

SHOPS

BARS

Support from citizens Support from local authorities

CITY BACKGROUND

AND

HOT SPOTS

CHILDREN

BUS

TRAM

METRO

Project planning discussion with the JRC

Set-up SQ Data basemanagement & procedures

Press Conference

Target of 500 screening questionnaires entered into master data-base

Selection of Environmentalmonitoring sites

INDOOR AND OUTDOOR

Invitatione-mail and post lists

web-pagesRADIO adverts

NEWSPAPER advertsPress releases

Start screening for PersonalExposure volunteers

Volunteers selectedwithin specified categories

Input fromJRC

Confirmation of volunteersparticipation

Arrangement of post sampling meeting

DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLERS Training in operation of sampler1 week prior to campaign day

DAY OF CAMPAIGN

Sampler collection

Return of materials to JRC

Week 1

Week 5

Week 7

Week 9

Week 8Launch Event

Sampling Sampling TechniquesTechniques

Diffusive Sampling Techniques

(Benzene and Aromatic Compounds)

Low Volume Samplers (PM10 and speciation: PAH, HM)

from 12 to 24 hours

1

3

5

7

9

11

1 3

µg /m 3

Benzene : Median 4.1

µg/m3

Outdoor ambient air levelsOutdoor ambient air levels

Med ian 25% -75% N on -Ou tlie r R ange B

ackground

Hom

e

Hotspot

Taxi

Office

Bar S

chool

Shop

C las e

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Benzene, µg/m

3

M edian 25% -75%

B ac k groundHom e

Hots potTax i

O ffic eB ar

S c hoolS hop

E nvirom ents

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Relative T

oluene/Benzene ratio w

ith respect to Background

Indoor ambient

Environments

Fresh

Aged

PEOPL E C ITIES

Me d ia n 2 5 % -75 % N o n -Ou tlie r R a ng e Ou tlie rs Extre m esMa drid

L ju b ljan aD u b lin

Bu cha re s tL is bo n

Bru s s e ls

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

Be

nze

ne

Co

nce

ntra

tion

, µg

/m3

Benzene exposure levels

Hum a n Ex posure

M edian 25% -75% Non-O utlier Range

C ontrol GroupC hildren

WalkerM etro

T rainBus

M ix transpor tPublic T ranspor t

C arSmoker

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Benzene, µ

g/m3

U s ers o f

Case Study: Madrid

TRAVELLING INSIDE OUTSIDE SMOKINGOther Café Restau- Other Other Same

Walk Bus Train Metro * Home Work Bar Shops -rant * Street Park * Self room7 0

15 30 45

8 0 15 30 45

9 0 15 30 45

Movement diary

• Simple one side diary questions on reverse side

• Used to provide data and ensure sample integrity

• Sampler and diary are easy to use

MAD R ID : Be n ze n e e xp o s u re le ve l, µg /m 3

0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0

Pre d icte d va lu e s

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

Ob

served values

R 2= 0 .5 8 8

Multivariable regression based on the movement diaries and exposure values

Exposure factors

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Exp

osu

re f

acto

r, µ

g/m

3/h

Wal

k

Car

Bus

Tra

in

Met

ro

Oth

er tr

ansp

Hom

e

Wor

k

Bar

Sho

ps

rest

aura

nt

othe

r in

side

Str

eet

Par

k

othe

r ou

tsid

e

Sm

okin

g tim

e

pass

ive

Benzene (µg/m3/hour) Toluene (µg/m3/hour)

Median time of activities for Madrid sample

0.7556Passive smoking

0.6324Smoking time

6.6984Work

2.29110Home

0.7930Metro

0.6315Train

0.5030Bus

1.0851Car

1.1383Walk

0.5029Street

1.0049Other inside

1.0023Restaurant

0.5029Shops

0.5067Bar

Median time of Activity, hour

Sample number

Activity

0.7556Passive smoking

0.6324Smoking time

6.6984Work

2.29110Home

0.7930Metro

0.6315Train

0.5030Bus

1.0851Car

1.1383Walk

0.5029Street

1.0049Other inside

1.0023Restaurant

0.5029Shops

0.5067Bar

Median time of Activity, hour

Sample number

Activity

B

BSmoker

8.5 µg/m3

14.8 µg/m3

AverageExposur

eLevelfor 12

hours

Street5% Walk

6%

Metro35%

Home12%

Work42%

Shops0%

Walk3%

Home7%

Street3%

Metro20%

Work24%

Smoking time27%

passive16%

2.00Passive smoking

2.00Smoking time

7.507.50Work

1.801.80Home

22Metro

Train

Bus

Car

0.500.50Walk

0.200.20Street

Other inside

Restaurant

Shops

Bar

Time, hTime, h

B smoker BActivity

2.00Passive smoking

2.00Smoking time

7.507.50Work

1.801.80Home

22Metro

Train

Bus

Car

0.500.50Walk

0.200.20Street

Other inside

Restaurant

Shops

Bar

Time, hTime, h

B smoker BActivity

Street4%

Walk5%

Car20%

Home5%

Work31%

passive3%

Shops10%

Bar10%

Bus12%

A

ASmoker

10.6 µg/m3

16.8 µg/m3

AverageExposur

eLevelfor 12

hours

Street2%

Walk3%

Car12%

Home3%

Bus7%

Bar6%

Shops6%

passive16%

Smoking time24%

Work21%

2.300.30Passive smoking

2.00Smoking time

7.007.00Work

1.001.00Home

Metro

Train

0.500.50Bus

1.501.50Car

0.500.50Walk

0.200.20Street

Other inside

Restaurant

0.500.50Shops

0.500.50Bar

Time, hTime, h

A smoker AActivity

2.300.30Passive smoking

2.00Smoking time

7.007.00Work

1.001.00Home

Metro

Train

0.500.50Bus

1.501.50Car

0.500.50Walk

0.200.20Street

Other inside

Restaurant

0.500.50Shops

0.500.50Bar

Time, hTime, h

A smoker AActivity

0.00.3

0.60.9

1.21.5

1.82.1

2.42.7

3.03.3

3.63.9

4.24.5

4.85.1

5.45.7

6.06.3

6.66.9

7.27.5

7.88.1

8.48.7

9.0

Ca te gory (uppe r lim its)Be nze ne , ug/m 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Relative F

requ

ency (%

)

Annual Average

Day of the campaign

Cum ula tive a nnua l distribution for 2003

Median CBG benzene concentration = 4.1 µg/m3

(day of the campaign)Median CBG benzene concentration = 3.4 µg/m3

(annual average)

Position of Madrid campaign day in 2003

A tale of six cities

Brussels LisbonBucharest

LjubljanaMadrid

Dublin

6.2

7.9

18.2

5.4

11.6

5.4

3.44.1

8.5

3.8 3.43.7

2.5

3.8

7

3.14.1

2.10

5

10

15

20

Ben

zen

e, µ

g/m

3

Median city background level (Campaign day)

Annual city background level

Maximum outdoor value (Campaign day)

Relating ambient air with population exposure

12 hours working day

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Average exposure level, µg/m3

Am

bien

t ai

r C

once

ntra

tion

, µg/

m3

Median city background level (Campaign day) Hot spots (Campaign day)

DUBLINLJUBLJANA

BRUSSELS

LISBON

MADRIDBUCHAREST

DUBLIN

LJUBLJANA

BRUSSELS

LISBON

MADRID

BUCHAREST

ConclusioConclusionsns

•Traffic was identified as the major source of outdoor pollution.

•Indoor pollution levels were controlled by external air quality

and presence of indoor emission sources.

•Exposure factors were estimated for Aromatic compounds

within different microenvironments.

•Preliminary assessment indicates that population exposure can

be adequately measured in snapshot campaign studies.

• Ambient background and hotspot concentration levels can be

used as indicators for the general exposure level of the population to

gaseous pollutants.