Combined use of an electrostatic precipitator and a high‐efficiency particulate air filter in building ventilation systems: Effects on cardiorespiratory health indicators in healthy adults |
| |
| Authors: | D. B. Day J. Xiang J. Mo M. A. Clyde C. J. Weschler F. Li J. Gong M. Chung Y. Zhang J. Zhang |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Global Health Institute and Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;2. Department of Building Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China;3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Indoor Air Quality Evaluation and Control, Beijing, China;4. Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;5. Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA;6. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China;7. State Key Laboratory for Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, and Beijing Innovation Center for Engineering Science and Advanced Technology (BIC‐ESAT), Peking University, Beijing, China;8. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA;9. Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China |
| |
| Abstract: | High‐efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration in combination with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) can be a cost‐effective approach to reducing indoor particulate exposure, but ESPs produce ozone. The health effect of combined ESP‐HEPA filtration has not been examined. We conducted an intervention study in 89 volunteers. At baseline, the air‐handling units of offices and residences for all subjects were comprised of coarse, ESP, and HEPA filtration. During the 5‐week long intervention, the subjects were split into 2 groups, 1 with just the ESP removed and the other with both the ESP and HEPA removed. Each subject was measured for cardiopulmonary risk indicators once at baseline, twice during the intervention, and once 2 weeks after baseline conditions were restored. Measured indoor and outdoor PM2.5 and ozone concentrations, coupled with time‐activity data, were used to calculate exposures. Removal of HEPA filters increased 24‐hour mean PM2.5 exposure by 38 (95% CI: 31, 45) μg/m3. Removal of ESPs decreased 24‐hour mean ozone exposure by 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) ppb. No biomarkers were significantly associated with HEPA filter removal. In contrast, ESP removal was associated with a ?16.1% (?21.5%, ?10.4%) change in plasma‐soluble P‐selectin and a ?3.0% (?5.1%, ?0.8%) change in systolic blood pressure, suggesting reduced cardiovascular risks. |
| |
| Keywords: | biomarker electrostatic precipitator high‐efficiency particulate air indoor air intervention ozone particulate matter |
|
|
