Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Key factors for selecting PM2.5 and ozone exposure assessment methods in epidemiological studies
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Key factors for selecting PM2.5 and ozone exposure assessment methods in epidemiological studies
Do you wish to request the book?
Key factors for selecting PM2.5 and ozone exposure assessment methods in epidemiological studies
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Key factors for selecting PM2.5 and ozone exposure assessment methods in epidemiological studies
2026
Overview
Environmental epidemiological studies often use both station-monitored and personal air pollutant exposures, which frequently yield different results. We aimed to identify key considerations when choosing between these measures. In a panel study of 37 college students assessed six times across three seasons for cardiorespiratory outcomes, personal PM
2.5
and O
3
exposures were monitored for 5 days with wearable sensors before each health assessment, alongside concurrent measurements from nearby monitoring stations. The association between station-monitored and personal concentrations was stronger for PM
2.5
(regression coefficient: 0.51 ± 0.16) than for O
3
(regression coefficient: 0.19 ± 0.15). Both station-monitored and personal PM
2.5
were associated with decreased forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV
1
), forced vital capacity (FVC), and increased fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). In contrast, only station-monitored O
3
was associated with decreased FEV
1
, FVC, increased FeNO, and worsening augmentation index (AI) and blood pressure. Personal O
3
showed mostly null associations or even “seemingly beneficial” associations with AI, FEV
1
, and FVC. These findings suggest station-monitored PM
2.5
can serve as a reasonable proxy for personal exposure in studies with minimal indoor PM
2.5
sources. However, this may be unsuitable for O
3
, given its high spatial variability and potential differences in exposure to ozone-derived reaction products.
