Exposure assessment of air pollutants: a review on spatial heterogeneity and indoor/outdoor/personal exposure to suspended particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ozone

This review describes databases of small-scale spatial variations and indoor, outdoor and personal measurements of air pollutants with the main focus on suspended particulate matter, and to a lesser extent, nitrogen dioxide and photochemical pollutants. The basic definitions and concepts of an exposure measurement are introduced as well as some study design considerations and implications of imprecise exposure measurements. Suspended particulate matter is complex with respect to particle size distributions, the chemical composition and its sources. With respect to small-scale spatial variations in urban areas, largest variations occur in the ultrafine (<0.1 μm) and the coarse mode (PM10–2.5, resuspended dust). Secondary aerosols which contribute to the accumulation mode (0.1–2 μm) show quite homogenous spatial distribution. In general, small-scale spatial variations of PM2.5 were described to be smaller than the spatial variations of PM10. Recent studies in outdoor air show that ultrafine particle number counts have large spatial variations and that they are not well correlated to mass data. Sources of indoor particles are from outdoors and some specific indoor sources such as smoking and cooking for fine particles or moving of people (resuspension of dust) for coarse particles. The relationships between indoor, outdoor and personal levels are complex. The finer the particle size, the better becomes the correlation between indoor, outdoor and personal levels. Furthermore, correlations between these parameters are better in longitudinal analyses than in cross-sectional analyses. For NO2 and O3, the air chemistry is important. Both have considerable small-scale spatial variations within urban areas. In the absence of indoor sources such as gas appliances, NO2 indoor/outdoor relationships are strong. For ozone, indoor levels are quite small. The study hypothesis largely determines the choice of a specific concept in exposure assessment, i.e. whether personal sampling is needed or if ambient monitoring is sufficient. Careful evaluation of the validity and improvements in precision of an exposure measure reduce error in the measurements and bias in the exposure–effect relationship.