Cargando…
Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) from non-tobacco sources in homes within high-income countries: a systematic review
The health impacts associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) are well recognised. There is a substantial number of studies characterising PM(2.5) concentrations outdoors, as well as in homes within low- and middle-income countries. In high-income countr...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9703437/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36467893 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11869-022-01288-8 |
Sumario: | The health impacts associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) are well recognised. There is a substantial number of studies characterising PM(2.5) concentrations outdoors, as well as in homes within low- and middle-income countries. In high-income countries (HICs), there is a sizeable literature on indoor PM(2.5) relating to smoking, but the evidence on exposure to PM(2.5) generated from non-tobacco sources in homes is sparse. This is especially relevant as people living in HICs spend the majority of their time at home, and in the northern hemisphere households often have low air exchange rates for energy efficiency. This review identified 49 studies that described indoor PM(2.5) concentrations generated from a variety of common household sources in real-life home settings in HICs. These included wood/solid fuel burning appliances, cooking, candles, incense, cleaning and humidifiers. The reported concentrations varied widely, both between sources and within groups of the same source. The burning of solid fuels was found to generate the highest indoor PM(2.5) concentrations. On occasion, other sources were also reported to be responsible for high PM(2.5) concentrations; however, this was only in a few select examples. This review also highlights the many inconsistencies in the ways data are collected and reported. The variable methods of measurement and reporting make comparison and interpretation of data difficult. There is a need for standardisation of methods and agreed contextual data to make household PM(2.5) data more useful in epidemiological studies and aid comparison of the impact of different interventions and policies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11869-022-01288-8. |
---|