A field study to estimate inhalation rates for use in a particle inhalation rate exposure metric.

Particle inhalation rate (PIR) is an air pollution exposure metric that relies on age-, sex-, and physical activity-specific estimates of minute respiratory volume (MRV; L/min-kg) to account for personal inhalation patterns. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)-generated MRV estimates derive primarily from relatively homogenous populations without substantial cardiorespiratory challenges. To determine if these MRV estimates are relevant to populations in generally poor cardiorespiratory health (e.g., the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study (BPRHS) population) or whether population-specific estimates are needed, we 1) estimated population-specific MRVs and compared them to USEPA MRV estimates, and 2) compared exposure distributions and health effect estimates using PIR with population-specific MRVs, PIR with USEPA MRVs, and ambient particle number concentration (PNC). We recruited 40 adults (80% Puerto Rican, mean age = 60.2 years) in Boston with health characteristics similar to the BPRHS population. We measured pulse, oxygen saturation, respiration rate, and inspiratory volume while participants walked, stood, sat, and lay down. Pulse, respiration rate, inspiratory volume, and MRV were greater when participants were walking/standing compared to sitting or lying down. We then calculated MRVs adjusted for age, sex, measured body weight, and physical activity using data from 19 Puerto Rican participants who wore a nose clip or held their nostrils closed. We applied the population-specific and USEPA MRVs to estimate ultrafine particle exposure for participants in the BPRHS (n = 781). We compared exposure distributions and health effect estimates using the PIR with population-specific MRV estimates, PIR with USEPA MRV estimates, and ambient concentrations. We found that while population-specific MRVs differed from USEPA MRVs, particularly for unhealthy participants, PIR exposure distributions and health effect estimates were similar using each exposure metric. Confidence intervals were narrower using the PIR metrics than ambient PNC, suggesting increased statistical efficiency. Even in our understudied population, using USEPA MRVs did not meaningfully change PIR estimates.