Comparing human exposure to fine particulate matter in low and high-income countries: A systematic review of studies measuring personal PM2.5 exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the adverse health effects of air pollution, researchers have advocated for personal exposure measurements whereby individuals carry portable monitors in order to better characterise and understand the sources of people's pollution exposure. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the differences in the magnitude and sources of personal PM2.5 exposures experienced between countries at contrasting levels of income. This review summarised studies that measured participants personal exposure by carrying a PM2.5 monitor throughout their typical day. Personal PM2.5 exposures were summarised to indicate the distribution of exposures measured within each country income category (based on low (LIC), lower-middle (LMIC), upper-middle (UMIC), and high (HIC) income countries) and between different groups (i.e. gender, age, urban or rural residents). From the 2259 search results, there were 140 studies that met our criteria. Overall, personal PM2.5 exposures in HICs were lower compared to other countries, with UMICs exposures being slightly lower than exposures measured in LMICs or LICs. 34% of measured groups in HICs reported below the ambient World Health Organisation 24-h PM2.5 guideline of 15 μg/m3, compared to only 1% of UMICs and 0% of LMICs and LICs. There was no difference between rural and urban participant exposures in HICs, but there were noticeably higher exposures recorded in rural areas compared to urban areas in non-HICs, due to significant household sources of PM2.5 in rural locations. In HICs, studies reported that secondhand smoke, ambient pollution infiltrating indoors, and traffic emissions were the dominant contributors to personal exposures. While, in non-HICs, household cooking and heating with biomass and coal were reported as the most important sources. This review revealed a growing literature of personal PM2.5 exposure studies, which highlighted a large variability in exposures recorded and severe inequalities in geographical and social population subgroups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".