Abstract
Background: The Reducing Air Pollution in Detroit Intervention Study (RAPIDS) was designed to evaluate cardiovascular health benefits and personal fine particulate matter (particulate matter < 2.5 μm in diameter, PM(2.5)) exposure reductions via portable air filtration units (PAFs) among older adults in Detroit, Michigan. This double-blind randomized crossover intervention study has shown that, compared to sham, air filtration for 3 days decreased 3-day average brachial systolic blood pressure by 3.2 mmHg. The results also showed that commercially available HEPA-type and true HEPA PAFs mitigated median indoor PM(2.5) concentrations by 58% and 65%, respectively. However, to our knowledge, no health intervention study in which a significant positive health effect was observed has also evaluated how outdoor and indoor PM(2.5) sources impacted the subjects. With that in mind, detailed characterization of outdoor and indoor PM(2.5) samples collected during this study and a source apportionment analysis of those samples using a positive matrix factorization model were completed. The aims of this most recent work were to characterize the indoor and outdoor sources of the PM(2.5) this community was exposed to and to assess how effectively commercially available HEPA-type and true HEPA PAFs were able to reduce indoor and outdoor PM(2.5) source contributions. Methods: Approximately 24 h daily indoor and outdoor PM(2.5) samples were collected on Teflon and Quartz filters from the apartments of 40 study subjects during each 3-day intervention period. These filters were analyzed for mass, carbon, and trace elements. Environmental Protection Agency Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 5.0 was utilized to determine major emission sources that contributed to the outdoor and indoor PM(2.5) levels during this study. Results: The major sources of outdoor PM(2.5) were secondary aerosols (28%), traffic/urban dust (24%), iron/steel industries (15%), sewage/municipal incineration (10%), and oil combustion/refinery (6%). The major sources of indoor PM(2.5) were organic compounds (45%), traffic + sewage/municipal incineration (14%), secondary aerosols (13%), smoking (7%), and urban dust (2%). Infiltration of outdoor PM(2.5) for sham, HEPA-type, and true HEPA air filtration was 79 ± 24%, 61 ± 32%, and 51 ± 34%, respectively. Conclusions: The results from our study showed that intervention with PAFs was able to significantly decrease indoor PM(2.5) derived from outdoor and indoor PM(2.5) sources. The PAFs were also able to significantly reduce the infiltration of outdoor PM(2.5). The results of this study provide insights into what types of major PM(2.5) sources this community is exposed to and what degree of air quality and systolic blood pressure improvements are possible through the use of commercially available PAFs in a real-world setting.