| Literature DB >> 29176859 |
Nu Yu1, Shi Shu1, Yan Lin1, Jianwen She2, Ho Sai Simon Ip2, Xinghua Qiu3, Yifang Zhu1.
Abstract
Commuters who spend long hours on roads are exposed to high levels of traffic related air pollutants (TRAPs). Despite some well-known multiple adverse effects of TRAPs on human health, limited studies have focused on mitigation strategies to reduce these effects. In this study, we measured fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ultrafine particle (UFP) concentrations inside and outside 17 taxis simultaneously while they were driven on roadways. The drivers' urinary monohydroxylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (OH-PAHs) and malondialdehyde (MDA) concentrations just before and right after the driving tests were also determined. Data were collected under three driving conditions (i.e. no mitigation (NM), window closed (WC), and window closed plus using high efficiency cabin air filters (WC+HECA)) for each taxi and driver. The results show that, compared to NM, the WC+HECA reduced in-cabin PM2.5 and UFP concentrations, by 37% and 47% respectively (p < 0.05), whereas the reductions on PAH exposures were insignificant. Although nonsignificant, a reduction of 17% was also observed in the drivers' urinary MDA under WC+HECA. The MDA concentrations were found to be significantly associated with the in-cabin PM2.5 and UFP concentrations, suggesting the reduction of the drivers' lipid peroxidation can be at least partially attributed to the PM2.5 and UFP reduction by WC+HECA. Overall, these results suggest HECA filters have potential to reduce particle levels inside taxis and protect drivers' health.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29176859 PMCID: PMC5703570 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188498
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of the studied taxi drivers*.
| Mean ± SD | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 47 ± 13 | 28 | 67 | |
| 10 ± 6 | 2 | 20 | |
| 26.8 ± 4.6 | 19.5 | 38.7 | |
| 2 (11.8%) | 1 (5.9%) | ||
| 0 (0%) | 3 (17.6%) | ||
| 6 (35.3%) | 10 (58.8%) | ||
| 5 (29.4%) | 3 (17.6%) | ||
| (23.5%) | |||
* Of seventeen total, sixteen were males (94.1%) and one female.
Summary of taxi drivers’ exposures under different test conditions (geometric mean, interquartile range, and percentage of change from NM).
| Mitigation | NM | WC | WC+HECA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31 (20, 53) | 28 (20, 40) (-10%) | 29 (24, 33) (-6%) | |
| 19 (15, 22) | 20 (16, 20) (5%) | 12 (10, 16) | |
| 2.71 (2.44, 3.02) | 2.72 (2.29, 3.46) (0%) | 2.70 (2.34, 3.55) (-0%) | |
| 1.40 (1.13, 1.97) | 1.33 (1.07, 1.77) (-5%) | 0.74 (0.59, 1.02) | |
| 4.69 (2.30, 8.96) | 3.47 (1.99, 5.38) (-26%) | 4.40 (2.50, 6.47) (-6%) | |
| 0.51 (0.29, 0.71) | 0.40 (0.30, 0.74) (-22%) | 0.48 (0.33, 0.60) (-6%) | |
| 0.15 (0.08, 0.24) | 0.12 (0.07, 0.20) (-20%) | 0.18 (0.14, 0.20) (20%) | |
| 0.05 (0.02, 0.10) | 0.05 (0.02, 0.10) (0%) | 0.07 (0.05, 0.10) (40%) | |
| 20.80 (20.53, 54.18) | 10.74 (9.23, 40.95) (-48%) | 27.14 (13.49, 56.39) (30%) | |
| 31.91 (22.78, 47.25) | 31.73 (22.87, 43.90) (-1%) | 23.68 (9.99, 55.37) (-17%) |
a. No mitigation
b. Window closed
c. High efficiency cabin air filter
d. Numbers in parenthesis indicate percentage of change from NM.
* indicate significance of paired t-test (p < 0.05) compared with NM.
Fig 1Regression coefficients of pre- and post-test urinary MDA and various exposure indicators including PM2.5 and UFP levels inside taxi as well as PAH metabolites in urine.
* indicates significant correlations (p < 0.05), error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 2Comparison of Los Angeles taxi driver urinary 1-PYR concentrations with literature data from U.S. population (NHANES), UCLA students, and some other occupational groups.