Literature DB >> 31125731

Ultrafine particles and PM2.5 in the air of cities around the world: Are they representative of each other?

Alma Lorelei de Jesus1, Md Mahmudur Rahman1, Mandana Mazaheri1, Helen Thompson2, Luke D Knibbs3, Cheol Jeong4, Greg Evans4, Wei Nei5, Aijun Ding5, Liping Qiao6, Li Li6, Harri Portin7, Jarkko V Niemi7, Hilkka Timonen8, Krista Luoma9, Tuukka Petäjä9, Markku Kulmala9, Michal Kowalski10, Annette Peters10, Josef Cyrys10, Luca Ferrero11, Maurizio Manigrasso12, Pasquale Avino13, Giorgio Buonano14, Cristina Reche15, Xavier Querol15, David Beddows16, Roy M Harrison17, Mohammad H Sowlat18, Constantinos Sioutas18, Lidia Morawska19.   

Abstract

Can mitigating only particle mass, as the existing air quality measures do, ultimately lead to reduction in ultrafine particles (UFP)? The aim of this study was to provide a broader urban perspective on the relationship between UFP, measured in terms of particle number concentration (PNC) and PM2.5 (mass concentration of particles with aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 μm) and factors that influence their concentrations. Hourly average PNC and PM2.5 were acquired from 10 cities located in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia over a 12-month period. A pairwise comparison of the mean difference and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with the application of bootstrapping were performed for each city. Diurnal and seasonal trends were obtained using a generalized additive model (GAM). The particle number to mass concentration ratios and the Pearson's correlation coefficient were calculated to elucidate the nature of the relationship between these two metrics. Results show that the annual mean concentrations ranged from 8.0 × 103 to 19.5 × 103 particles·cm-3 and from 7.0 to 65.8 μg·m-3 for PNC and PM2.5, respectively, with the data distributions generally skewed to the right, and with a wider spread for PNC. PNC showed a more distinct diurnal trend compared with PM2.5, attributed to the high contributions of UFP from vehicular emissions to PNC. The variation in both PNC and PM2.5 due to seasonality is linked to the cities' geographical location and features. Clustering the cities based on annual median concentrations of both PNC and PM2.5 demonstrated that a high PNC level does not lead to a high PM2.5, and vice versa. The particle number-to-mass ratio (in units of 109 particles·μg-1) ranged from 0.14 to 2.2, >1 for roadside sites and <1 for urban background sites with lower values for more polluted cities. The Pearson's r ranged from 0.09 to 0.64 for the log-transformed data, indicating generally poor linear correlation between PNC and PM2.5. Therefore, PNC and PM2.5 measurements are not representative of each other; and regulating PM2.5 does little to reduce PNC. This highlights the need to establish regulatory approaches and control measures to address the impacts of elevated UFP concentrations, especially in urban areas, considering their potential health risks.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:  PM(2.5); Particle number concentration; Urban aerosol

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31125731     DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Int        ISSN: 0160-4120            Impact factor:   9.621


  15 in total

1.  The physics of particle formation and deposition during breathing.

Authors:  Lidia Morawska; Giorgio Buonanno
Journal:  Nat Rev Phys       Date:  2021-03-23

2.  Mental and Physical Stress Responses to Personal Ultrafine Particle Exposure in Adolescents.

Authors:  Ashley L Turner; Cole Brokamp; Chris Wolfe; Tiina Reponen; Kelly J Brunst; Patrick H Ryan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-19       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  Impact of Personal, Subhourly Exposure to Ultrafine Particles on Respiratory Health in Adolescents with Asthma.

Authors:  Ashley L Turner; Cole Brokamp; Chris Wolfe; Tiina Reponen; Patrick H Ryan
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2022-09

4.  Long-term impact of PM2.5 mass and sulfur reductions on ultrafine particle trends in Boston, MA from 1999 to 2018.

Authors:  Melissa Fiffer; Choong-Min Kang; Weeberb J Requia; Petros Koutrakis
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.235

5.  The influence of chemical composition, aerosol acidity, and metal dissolution on the oxidative potential of fine particulate matter and redox potential of the lung lining fluid.

Authors:  Pourya Shahpoury; Zheng Wei Zhang; Andrea Arangio; Valbona Celo; Ewa Dabek-Zlotorzynska; Tom Harner; Athanasios Nenes
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 9.621

6.  Toxicological Responses of α-Pinene-Derived Secondary Organic Aerosol and Its Molecular Tracers in Human Lung Cell Lines.

Authors:  Faria Khan; Karina Kwapiszewska; Yue Zhang; Yuzhi Chen; Andrew T Lambe; Agata Kołodziejczyk; Nasir Jalal; Krzysztof Rudzinski; Alicia Martínez-Romero; Rebecca C Fry; Jason D Surratt; Rafal Szmigielski
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.739

7.  The Ferroxidase Hephaestin in Lung Cancer: Pathological Significance and Prognostic Value.

Authors:  Paola Zacchi; Beatrice Belmonte; Alessandro Mangogna; Gaia Morello; Letizia Scola; Anna Martorana; Violetta Borelli
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 8.  Fifteen Years of Airborne Particulates in Vitro Toxicology in Milano: Lessons and Perspectives Learned.

Authors:  Eleonora Marta Longhin; Paride Mantecca; Maurizio Gualtieri
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 9.  The health effects of ultrafine particles.

Authors:  Dean E Schraufnagel
Journal:  Exp Mol Med       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 8.718

10.  Unraveling the blood transcriptome after real-life exposure of Wistar-rats to PM2.5, PM1 and water-soluble metals in the ambient air.

Authors:  Ilias S Frydas; Marianthi Kermenidou; Olga Tsave; Athanasios Salifoglou; Dimosthenis A Sarigiannis
Journal:  Toxicol Rep       Date:  2020-10-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.