Influence of methodology on the estimation of the particle surface area dose received by a population in all-day...

In everyday life, people are exposed to different concentrations of airborne particles depending on the microenvironment where they perform their different activities. Such exposure can lead to high sub-micron particle doses. The received dose depends on particle concentration to which people are exposed (typically expressed in terms of number or surface area), time spent in each activity or microenvironment (time activity pattern) and amount of air inhaled (inhalation rate). To estimate an actual value of the received dose, all these parameters should be measured under real-life conditions; in fact, the concentrations should be measured on a personal scale (i.e. through a direct exposure assessment), whereas time activity patterns and inhalation rates specific to the activity performed should be considered. The difficulties in obtaining direct measurements of these parameters usually lead to adopt time activity patterns and inhalation rates already available in scientific literature for typical populations, and local outdoor particle concentrations measured with fixed monitoring stations and extrapolated for all the other microenvironments. To overcome these limitations, we propose a full-field method for estimating the received dose of a population sample, in which all the parameters (concentration levels, time activity patterns and inhalation rates) are measured under real-life conditions (also including the inhalation rates, that were evaluated on the basis of the measured heart rates). Specifically, 34 volunteers were continuously monitored for seven days and the data of sub-micron particle concentrations, activities performed, and inhalation rates were recorded. The received dose was calculated with the proposed method and compared with those obtained from different simplified methodologies that consider typical data of particle concentrations, time activity patterns and inhalation rates obtained from literature. The results show that, depending on the methodology used, the differences in the received daily dose can be significant, with a general underestimation of the most simplified method.