| Title |
New Methods for Personal Exposure Monitoring for Airborne Particles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-015-0070-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kirsten A. Koehler, Thomas M. Peters |
| Abstract |
Airborne particles have been associated with a range of adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes, which has driven its monitoring at stationary central sites throughout the world. Individual exposures, however, can differ substantially from concentrations measured at central sites due to spatial variability across a region and sources unique to the individual, such as cooking or cleaning in homes, traffic emissions during commutes, and widely varying sources encountered at work. Personal monitoring with small, battery-powered instruments enables the measurement of an individual's exposure as they go about their daily activities. Personal monitoring can substantially reduce exposure misclassification and improve the power to detect relationships between particulate pollution and adverse health outcomes. By partitioning exposures to known locations and sources, it may be possible to account for variable toxicity of different sources. This review outlines recent advances in the field of personal exposure assessment for particulate pollution. Advances in battery technology have improved the feasibility of 24-h monitoring, providing the ability to more completely attribute exposures to microenvironment (e.g., work, home, commute). New metrics to evaluate the relationship between particulate matter and health are also being considered, including particle number concentration, particle composition measures, and particle oxidative load. Such metrics provide opportunities to develop more precise associations between airborne particles and health and may provide opportunities for more effective regulations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 16% |
| Researcher | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 41 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 43 | 26% |
| Engineering | 20 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 6 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 53 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,621,769
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#161
of 346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,516
of 279,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.