On the distribution of low-cost PM
EPA monitors
Environmental justice
Low-cost air quality sensors
Public health
PurpleAir
Journal
Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology
ISSN: 1559-064X
Titre abrégé: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101262796
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
27
06
2020
accepted:
08
04
2021
revised:
07
04
2021
pubmed:
8
5
2021
medline:
3
7
2021
entrez:
7
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Low-cost sensors have the potential to democratize air pollution information and supplement regulatory networks. However, differentials in access to these sensors could exacerbate existing inequalities in the ability of different communities to respond to the threat of air pollution. Our goal was to analyze patterns of deployments of a commonly used low-cost sensor, as a function of demographics and pollutant concentrations. We used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to assess differences between socioeconomic characteristics and PM Census tracts with low-cost sensors were higher income more White and more educated than the US as a whole and than tracts with regulatory monitors. For all states except for California they are in locations with lower annual-average PM Strategies to improve access to low-cost sensors in less-privileged communities are needed to democratize air pollution data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Low-cost sensors have the potential to democratize air pollution information and supplement regulatory networks. However, differentials in access to these sensors could exacerbate existing inequalities in the ability of different communities to respond to the threat of air pollution.
OBJECTIVE
Our goal was to analyze patterns of deployments of a commonly used low-cost sensor, as a function of demographics and pollutant concentrations.
METHODS
We used Wilcoxon rank sum tests to assess differences between socioeconomic characteristics and PM
RESULTS
Census tracts with low-cost sensors were higher income more White and more educated than the US as a whole and than tracts with regulatory monitors. For all states except for California they are in locations with lower annual-average PM
SIGNIFICANCE
Strategies to improve access to low-cost sensors in less-privileged communities are needed to democratize air pollution data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33958706
doi: 10.1038/s41370-021-00328-2
pii: 10.1038/s41370-021-00328-2
doi:
Substances chimiques
Air Pollutants
0
Particulate Matter
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
514-524Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Références
US EPANAAQS Table . https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-Table
Sullivan DM, Krupnick A. Using Satellite Data to Fill the Gaps in the US Air Pollution Monitoring Network. Resour Future Work Pap. 2018;18–21.
Watson JG, Chow JC, DuBois D, Green M, Frank N. Guidance for the network design and optimum site exposure for PM2. 5 and PM10 (No. PB-99-157513/XAB; EPA-454/R-99/022). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC (United States); Nevada Univ. System, Desert Research Inst., Reno, NV (United States); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Las Vegas, NV (United States). 1997.
Grainger C, Schreiber A, Chang W. Do regulators strategically avoid pollution hotspots when siting monitors? Evidence from remote sensing of air pollution. University of Wisconsin. 2018. unpublished manuscript.
Grainger C, Schreiber A. Discrimination in ambient air pollution monitoring? AEA Pap Proc. 2019;109:277–82.
doi: 10.1257/pandp.20191063
Muller NZ, Ruud PA. What forces dictate the design of pollution monitoring networks? Environ Model Assess. 2018;23:1–14.
doi: 10.1007/s10666-017-9553-7
Zou E. Unwatched pollution: the effect of intermittent monitoring on air quality. 2018. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56034c20e4b047f1e0c1bfca/t/5b8a0680758d4634c2df5867/1535772291252/monitor_zou_201808.pdf .
Williams R, Kilaru V, Snyder E, Kaufman A, Dye T, Rutter A, et al. Air Sensor Guidebook. Washington, DC.: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2014. EPA/600/R-14/159 (NTIS PB2015-100610).
Snyder EG, Watkins TH, Solomon PA, Thoma ED, Williams RW, Hagler GSW, et al. The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:11369–77.
doi: 10.1021/es4022602
pubmed: 23980922
deSouza P, Nthusi V, Klopp JM, Shaw BE, Ho WO, Saffell J, et al. A Nairobi experiment in using low cost air quality monitors. Clean Air J Tydskr Vir Skoon Lug. 2017;27:12–42.
deSouza P, Anjomshoaa A, Duarte F, Kahn R, Kumar P, Ratti C. Air quality monitoring using mobile low-cost sensors mounted on trash-trucks: methods development and lessons learned. Sustain Cities Soc. 2020;60:102239.
doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102239
deSouza P, Kahn RA, Limbacher JA, Marais EA, Duarte F, Ratti C. Combining low-cost, surface-based aerosol monitors with size-resolved satellite data for air quality applications. Atmos Meas Tech. 2020;13:5319–34.
Castell N, Dauge FR, Schneider P, Vogt M, Lerner U, Fishbain B, et al. Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates? Environ Int. 2017;99:293–302.
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.007
pubmed: 28038970
Clements AL, Griswold WG, Rs A, Johnston JE, Herting MM, Thorson J, et al. Low-cost air quality monitoring tools: from research to practice (a workshop summary). Sensors. 2017;17:2478.
doi: 10.3390/s17112478
pmcid: 5713187
Kumar P, Morawska L, Martani C, Biskos G, Neophytou M, Di Sabatino S, et al. The rise of low-cost sensing for managing air pollution in cities. Environ Int. 2015;75:199–205.
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.019
pubmed: 25483836
Morawska L, Thai PK, Liu X, Asumadu-Sakyi A, Ayoko G, Bartonova A, et al. Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone? Environ Int. 2018;116:286–99.
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.018
pubmed: 29704807
pmcid: 6145068
McKercher GR, Salmond JA, Vanos JK. Characteristics and applications of small, portable gaseous air pollution monitors. Environ Pollut. 2017;223:102–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.045
pubmed: 28162801
O’Rourke D, Macey GP. Community environmental policing: Assessing new strategies of public participation in environmental regulation. J Policy Anal Manag. 2003;22:383–414.
doi: 10.1002/pam.10138
Williams R, Duvall R, Kilaru V, Hagler G, Hassinger L, Benedict K, et al. Deliberating performance targets workshop: potential paths for emerging PM2.5 and O3 air sensor progress. Atmos Environ X. 2019;2:100031.
pubmed: 34322666
pmcid: 8314253
English PB, Richardson MJ, Garzón-Galvis C. From crowdsourcing to extreme citizen science: participatory research for environmental health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:335–50.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013702
pubmed: 29608871
Community Air Protection Program | California Air Resources Board. Accessed 12 Oct 2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp
Austen K. Environmental science: pollution patrol. Nat N. 2015;517:136.
doi: 10.1038/517136a
Hubbell BJ, Kaufman A, Rivers L, Schulte K, Hagler G, Clougherty J, et al. Understanding social and behavioral drivers and impacts of air quality sensor use. Sci Total Environ. 2018;621:886–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.275
pubmed: 29216596
Ottinger G. Buckets of resistance: standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2010;35:244–70.
doi: 10.1177/0162243909337121
Allen BL. Uneasy alchemy: citizens and experts in Louisiana’s chemical corridor disputes. MIT Press: Cambridge MA; 2003.
Bell ML, Ebisu K. Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:1699–1704.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.1205201
pubmed: 22889745
pmcid: 3546368
Miranda ML, Edwards SE, Keating MH, Paul CJ. Making the environmental justice grade: the relative burden of air pollution exposure in the United States. Int J Environ Res. Public Health. 2011;8:1755–71.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph8061755
pubmed: 21776200
pmcid: 3137995
Sayahi T, Kaufman D, Becnel T, Kaur K, Butterfield AE, Collingwood S, et al. Development of a calibration chamber to evaluate the performance of low-cost particulate matter sensors. Environ Pollut. 2019;255:113131.
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113131
pubmed: 31521992
pmcid: 7409587
PurpleAir PA-II. Accessed 27 Jun 2020. https://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec/product/purpleair-pa-ii
Kelly KE, Whitaker J, Petty A, Widmer C, Dybwad A, Sleeth D, et al. Ambient and laboratory evaluation of a low-cost particulate matter sensor. Environ Pollut. 2017;221:491–500.
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.039
pubmed: 28012666
Badura M, Batog P, Drzeniecka-Osiadacz A, Modzel P. Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors for Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring. Vol. 2018, Journal of Sensors. Hindawi; 2018. Accessed 27 Sep 2020. p. e5096540. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/js/2018/5096540/
Liu X, Jayaratne R, Thai P, Kuhn T, Zing I, Christensen B, et al. Low-cost sensors as an alternative for long-term air quality monitoring. Environ Res. 2020;185:109438.
doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109438
pubmed: 32276167
Glenn EH, ACS.R, An R Package for Neighborhood-Level Data from the U.S. Census. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2011. Accessed 27 Jun 2020. Report No.: ID 2171390. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2171390
Auchincloss Amy H, Diez Roux Ana V, Timothy Dvonch J, Brown Patrick L, Barr Graham R, Daviglus Martha L. et al. Associations between recent exposure to ambient fine particulate matter and blood pressure in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA). Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116:486–91.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.10899
pubmed: 18414631
pmcid: 2291007
van Donkelaar A, Martin RV, Li C, Burnett RT. Regional estimates of chemical composition of fine particulate matter using a combined geoscience-statistical method with information from satellites, models, and monitors. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:2595–611.
Team RC, others. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria; 2013.
Gupta P, Doraiswamy P, Levy R, Pikelnaya O, Maibach J, Feenstra B, et al. Impact of California fires on local and regional air quality: the role of a low-cost sensor network and satellite observations. GeoHealth. 2018;2:172–81.
doi: 10.1029/2018GH000136
pubmed: 31157310
pmcid: 6544158
Bi J, Wildani A, Chang HH, Liu Y. Incorporating low-cost sensor measurements into high-resolution PM2.5 modeling at a large spatial scale. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:2152–62.
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06046
pubmed: 31927908