Particle number and mass exposure concentrations by commuter transport modes in Milan, Italy

Senem Ozgen; Giovanna Ripamonti; Alessandro Malandrini; Martina S. Ragettli; Giovanni Lonati; Senem Ozgen; Giovanna Ripamonti; Alessandro Malandrini; Martina S. Ragettli; Giovanni Lonati

doi:10.3934/environsci.2016.2.168

AIMS Environmental Science

2016, Volume 3, Issue 2: 168-184. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.2.168

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Particle number and mass exposure concentrations by commuter transport modes in Milan, Italy

1.
DICA-Environmental Section - Politecnico di Milano, P.zza L. da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy
2.
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Basel, Switzerland
3.
University of Basel, Switzerland

Received: 10 December 2015 Accepted: 17 March 2016 Published: 28 March 2016

Abstract
Full Text(HTML)
Download PDF

There is increasing awareness amongst the general public about exposure to atmospheric pollution while travelling in urban areas especially when taking active travelling modes such as walking and cycling. This study presents a comparative investigation of ultrafine particles (UFP), PM10, PM2.5, PM1 exposure levels associated with four transport modes (i.e., walking, cycling, car, and subway) in the city of Milan measured by means of portable instruments. Significant differences in particle exposure between transport modes were found. The subway mode was characterized by the highest PM mass concentrations: PM10, PM2.5, PM1 subway levels were respectively about 2-4-3 times higher than those of the car and open air active modes (i.e. cycling and walking). Conversely, these latter modes displayed the highest UFP levels about 2 to 3 times higher than the subway and car modes, highlighting the influence of direct traffic emissions. The car mode (closed windows, air conditioning and air recirculation on) reported the lowest PM and UFP concentration levels. In particular, the open-air/car average concentration ratio varied from about 2 for UFP up to 4 for PM1 and 6 for PM10 and PM2.5, showing differences that increase with increasing particle size. This work points out that active mode travelling in Milan city centre in summertime results in higher exposure levels than the car mode. Walkers’ and cyclists’ exposure levels is expected to be even higher during wintertime, due to the higher ambient PM and UFP concentration. Interventions intended to re-design the urban mobility should therefore include dedicated routes in order to limit their exposure to PM and UFP by increasing their distance from road traffic.
- exposure concentration,
- transport mode,
- ultrafine particle,
- particulate matter, active mobility
Citation: Senem Ozgen, Giovanna Ripamonti, Alessandro Malandrini, Martina S. Ragettli, Giovanni Lonati. Particle number and mass exposure concentrations by commuter transport modes in Milan, Italy[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(2): 168-184. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.2.168

Related Papers:

Abstract

There is increasing awareness amongst the general public about exposure to atmospheric pollution while travelling in urban areas especially when taking active travelling modes such as walking and cycling. This study presents a comparative investigation of ultrafine particles (UFP), PM10, PM2.5, PM1 exposure levels associated with four transport modes (i.e., walking, cycling, car, and subway) in the city of Milan measured by means of portable instruments. Significant differences in particle exposure between transport modes were found. The subway mode was characterized by the highest PM mass concentrations: PM10, PM2.5, PM1 subway levels were respectively about 2-4-3 times higher than those of the car and open air active modes (i.e. cycling and walking). Conversely, these latter modes displayed the highest UFP levels about 2 to 3 times higher than the subway and car modes, highlighting the influence of direct traffic emissions. The car mode (closed windows, air conditioning and air recirculation on) reported the lowest PM and UFP concentration levels. In particular, the open-air/car average concentration ratio varied from about 2 for UFP up to 4 for PM1 and 6 for PM10 and PM2.5, showing differences that increase with increasing particle size. This work points out that active mode travelling in Milan city centre in summertime results in higher exposure levels than the car mode. Walkers’ and cyclists’ exposure levels is expected to be even higher during wintertime, due to the higher ambient PM and UFP concentration. Interventions intended to re-design the urban mobility should therefore include dedicated routes in order to limit their exposure to PM and UFP by increasing their distance from road traffic.

References

[1]	Beelen R, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Stafoggia M, et al. (2014) Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project. Lancet 383: 785-795.
[2]	Ostro B, Hu J, Goldberg D, et al. (2015) Associations of mortality with long-term exposures to fine and ultrafine particles, species and sources: results from the California teachers study cohort. Environ Health Persp 123: 549-556.
[3]	Pedata P, Stoeger T, Zimmermann R, et al. (2015) Are we forgetting the smallest, sub 10 nm combustion generated particles? Part Fibre Toxicol 12: 34. doi: 10.1186/s12989-015-0107-3
[4]	Sarnat SE, Winquist A, Schauer JJ, et al. (2015) Fine particulate matter components and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the St. Louis, Missouri–Illinois, metropolitan area. Environ Health Persp 123: 437-444.
[5]	Wallace L, Ott W, (2011) Personal exposure to ultrafine particles. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21: 20-30. doi: 10.1038/jes.2009.59
[6]	Spinazzè A, Cattaneo A, Scocca DR, et al. (2015) Multi-metric measurement of personal exposure to ultrafine particles in selected urban microenvironments. Atmos Environ 110: 8-17. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.034
[7]	Karanasiou A, Viana M, Querol X, (2014) Assessment of personal exposure to particulate air pollution during commuting in European cities - recommendations and policy implications. Sci Total Environ 490: 785-797. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.036
[8]	Suárez L, Mesías S, Iglesias V, et al. (2014) Personal exposure to particulate matter in commuters using different transport modes bus, bicycle, car and subway) in an assigned route in downtown Santiago, Chile. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 16: 1309-1317. doi: 10.1039/c3em00648d
[9]	Ragettli M, Corradi E, Braun-Fahrländer C, et al. (2013) Commuter exposure to ultrafine particles in different urban locations, transportation modes and routes. Atmos Environ 77: 376-384. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.003
[10]	Quiros DC, Lee ES, Wang R, et al. (2013) Ultrafine particle exposures while walking, cycling, and driving along an urban residential roadway. Atmos Environ 73: 185-194. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.03.027
[11]	de Nazelle A, Fruin S, Westerdahl D, et al. (2012) A travel mode comparison of commuters' exposures to air pollutants in Barcelona. Atmos Environ 59: 151-159. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.05.013
[12]	Briggs DJ, de Hoogh K, Morris C, et al. (2008) Effects of travel mode on exposures to particulate air pollution. Environ Int 34, 12-22.
[13]	Wang XR, Gao HO (2011) Exposure to fine particle mass and number concentrations in urban transportation environments of New York City. Transport Res Part D 16: 384-391. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2011.03.001
[14]	Int Panis L, de Geus B, Vandenbulcke G, et al. (2010) Exposure to particulate matter in traffic: a comparison of cyclists and car passengers. Atmos Environ 44: 2263-2270.
[15]	Strak M, Boogaard H, Meliefste K, et al. (2010) Respiratory health effects of ultrafine and fine particle exposure in cyclists. Occup Environ Med 67: 118–124. doi: 10.1136/oem.2009.046847
[16]	Zuurbier M, Hoek G, Oldenwening M, et al. (2010) Commuters’ exposure to particulate matter air pollution is affected by mode of transport, fuel type, and route. Environ Health Persp 118, 783-789.
[17]	Good N, Mölter A, Ackerson C, et al. (2015) The Fort Collins Commuter Study: Impact of route type and transport mode on personal exposure to multiple air pollutants. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol:1-8.
[18]	Kaur S, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Colvile R, (2005) Personal exposure of street canyon intersection users to PM2.5, ultrafine particle counts and carbon monoxide in Central London, UK. Atmos Environ 39: 3629-3641
[19]	Kingham S, Longley I, Salmond J, et al. (2013) Variations in exposure to traffic pollution while travelling by different modes in a low density, less congested city. Environ Pollut 181: 211-218. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.030
[20]	Knibbs LD, Cole-Hunter T, Morawska L, (2011) A review of commuter exposure to ultrafine particles and its health effects. Atmos Environ 45: 2611-2622. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.02.065
[21]	de Nazelle A, Rodríguez, DA, Crawford-Brown D, (2009) The built environment and health: impacts of pedestrian-friendly designs on air pollution exposure. Sci Tot Environ 407: 2525-2535. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.01.006
[22]	Rojas-Rueda D, de Nazelle A, Teixidó O, et al. (2013) Health impact assessment of increasing public transport and cycling use in Barcelona: a morbidity and burden of disease approach. Prev med 57: 573-579. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.07.021
[23]	Hofmann W (2011) Modelling inhaled particle deposition in the human lung: a review. J Aerosol Sci 42: 693-724.
[24]	Yu Q, Lu Y, Xiaoyu S, et al. (2012) Commuters’ exposure to PM1 by common travel modes in Shanghai. Atmos Environ 59: 39-46.
[25]	Daigle CC, Chalupa DC, Gibb FR, et al. (2003) Ultrafine Particle Deposition in Humans During Rest and Exercise. Inhal Toxicol 15: 539-552. doi: 10.1080/08958370304468
[26]	Chalupa DC, Morrow PE, Oberdörster G, et al. (2004). Ultrafine particle deposition in subjects with asthma. Environ Health Perspect 112: 879-882. doi: 10.1289/ehp.6851
[27]	Borgini A, Tittarelli A, Ricci C, et al. (2011) Personal exposure to PM2.5 among high-school students in Milan and background measurements: The EuroLifeNet study. Atmos Environ 45: 4147-4151.
[28]	Cattaneo A, Garramone G, Taronna M, et al. (2008) Personal exposure to airborne ultrafine particles in the urban area of Milan. J Phys Conf Ser 151: 012039.
[29]	Lonati G, Ozgen S, Ripamonti G, et al. (2011) Pedestrian exposure to size-resolved particles in Milan. J Air Waste Manage 61: 1273-1280.
[30]	Murruni LG, Solanes V, Debray M, et al. (2009) Concentrations and elemental composition of particulate matter in the Buenos Aires underground system. Atmos Environ 43: 4577-4583. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.025
[31]	Colombi C, Angius S, Gianelle V, et al. (2013). Particulate matter concentrations, physical characteristics and elemental composition in the Milan underground transport system. Atmos Environ 70: 166-178.
[32]	Morawska L, Ristovski Z, Jayaratne ER, et al. (2008) Ambient nano and ultrafine particles from motor vehicle emissions: characteristics, ambient processing and implications on human exposure. Atmos Environ 42: 8113-8138. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.07.050
[33]	Boogaard H, Montagne DR, Brandenburg AP, et al. (2010). Comparison of short-term exposure to particle number, PM10 and soot concentrations on three (sub) urban locations. Sci Total Environ 408: 4403-4411. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.06.022
[34]	Berghmans P, Bleux N, Int Panis L, et al. (2009) Exposure assessment of a cyclist to PM10 and ultrafine particles. Sci. Total Environ 407: 1286-1298. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.041
[35]	Kaur S, Clark R, Walsh P, et al. (2006) Exposure visualization of ultrafine particle counts in a transport microenvironment. Atmos Environ 40: 386-398. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.09.047
[36]	Lonati G, Ozgen S, Luraghi I, Giugliano M (2010) Particle number concentration at urban microenvironments. Chem Eng Trans 22: 137-142.
[37]	Moreno T, Reche C, Rivas I, et al. (2015) A70 Air pollution and city travel: choices in commuter exposure to inhalable particulates. Journal of Transport & Health 2: S41-S42.
[38]	Hudda N, Kostenidou E, Sioutas C, et al. (2011) Vehicle and driving characteristics that influence in-cabin particle number concentrations. Env Sci Technol 45: 8691-8697. doi: 10.1021/es202025m
[39]	Huang J, Deng FR, Wu SW, et al. (2012) Comparisons of personal exposure to PM2.5 and CO by different commuting modes in Beijing. Sci Total Environ 425: 52-59.
[40]	Wu DL, Lin M, Chan CY, et al. (2013) Influences of commuting mode, air conditioning mode and meteorological parameters on fine particle (PM2.5) exposure levels in traffic microenvironments. Aerosol Air Qual Res 13: 709-720
[41]	Kam W, Cheung K, Daher N, et al. (2011) Particulate matter (PM) concentrations in underground and ground-level rail systems of the Los Angeles Metro. Atmos Environ 45: 1506-1516 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.12.049
[42]	Querol X, Moreno T, Karanasiou A, et al. (2012) Variability of levels and composition of PM10 and PM2.5 in the Barcelona metro system. Atmos Chem Phys 12: 5055-5076
[43]	Moreno T, Pérez N, Reche C, et al. (2014) Subway platform air quality: Assessing the influences of tunnel ventilation, train piston effect and station design. Atmos Environ 92: 461-468. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.043

Reader Comments

your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)