Reduction of Outdoor and Indoor PM2.5 Source Contributions via Portable Air Filtration Systems in a Senior Residential Facility in Detroit, Michigan

• Published in: Toxics (Basel) 2023-12, Vol.11 (12), p.1019
• Main Authors: Klaver, Zachary M., Crane, Ryan C., Ziemba, Rosemary A., Bard, Robert L., Adar, Sara D., Brook, Robert D., Morishita, Masako
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aerosols; air filtration; Air pollution; Air pollution control; Air quality; Aluminum; Blood pressure; Carbon; cardiovascular health; Combustion; Dust; Efficiency; Environmental protection; Exposure; Factorization; Filters; Filtration; Health promotion; Incineration; Indoor air pollution; Indoor environments; indoor PM2.5; Infiltration; Intervention; Molybdenum; Older people; Organic compounds; Outdoor air quality; Particulate emissions; Particulate matter; Polytetrafluoroethylene; Portability; Quality standards; Refineries; Sewage; Signal to noise ratio; source apportionment; Trace elements
• ISSN: 2305-6304; 2305-6304
• DOI: 10.3390/toxics11121019

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 wer