Ambient and personal air monitoring using low-cost sensors to identify elevated air pollution in vulnerable communities

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: Statistical significance reported but specific values not provided

• Effect Size: 4/12 sites showed significantly increased PM2.5; 11/12 sites showed increased AQI

• Primary Outcome: PM2.5 concentrations and AQI values in vulnerable community vs regulatory monitors

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Up to 6 days where community AQI exceeded healthy levels (>50) while EPA monitor did not

• Confidence Interval: Not provided in abstract

Clinical Application

Low-cost monitoring technology makes community-based surveillance feasible for resource-limited settings Relevant for monitoring air quality in disadvantaged Australian communities, particularly near industrial areas or major transport corridors. Could inform public health interventions and complement existing state EPA monitoring networks Residents of disadvantaged communities with potential air pollution exposure disparities

Abstract

In the United States, regulatory air monitoring networks are designed to assess regional air quality but do not capture neighborhood-level variability in pollutant concentrations. Low-cost air monitors may be one approach to address these gaps. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether neighborhood-level and personal monitoring identified increased concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposures in the neighborhood of Lower Price Hill (LPH), Cincinnati, Ohio, compared with regional regulatory monitors. We deployed a network of 12 PurpleAir monitors across LPH from April-June 2022 and calibrated measurements to a nearby U.S. EPA regulatory monitor. PM2.5 concentrations and Air Quality Index (AQI) values measured by the PurpleAir sensors were compared with two EPA monitoring sites. Additionally, three residents conducted 7-day personal monitoring using wearable AirBeam devices. Calibrated PurpleAir data demonstrated significantly increased PM2.5 concentrations at four of the 12 PurpleAir sites and increased AQI at 11 of the 12 PurpleAir sites in LPH compared to EPA regulatory sites. PurpleAir data also found that LPH experienced up to six days where AQI exceeded healthy levels (>50) but the EPA regulatory monitor did not exceed 50. Personal monitoring revealed substantial variability, with two of three participants exceeding the EPA 24-hour outdoor PM2.5 standard (>35 μg/m3) on all study days, indicating exposures not measured by outdoor stationary monitoring. Overall, regulatory monitoring may underestimate neighborhood-level and personal PM2.5 exposures in LPH. Community-based and personal monitoring provides novel insights into localized exposure disparities and may improve risk communication and inform interventions in vulnerable communities.