Lessons from in-home air filtration intervention trials to reduce urban ultrafine particle number concentrations

Publication date: December 2017
Source:Building and Environment, Volume 126
Author(s): Doug Brugge, Matthew C. Simon, Neelakshi Hudda, Marisa Zellmer, Laura Corlin, Stephanie Cleland, Eda Yiqi Lu, Sonja Rivera, Megan Byrne, Mei Chung, John L. Durant
Background Exposure to airborne ultrafine particle (UFP; <100 nm in aerodynamic diameter) is an emerging public health problem. Nevertheless, the benefit of using high efficiency particulate arrestance (HEPA) filtration to reduce UFP concentrations in homes is not yet clear. Methods We conducted a randomized crossover study of HEPA filtration without a washout period in 23 homes of low-income Puerto Ricans in Boston and Chelsea, MA (USA). Most participants were female, older adults who were overweight or obese. Particle number concentrations (PNC, a proxy for UFP) were measured indoors and outdoors at each home continuously for six weeks. Homes received both HEPA filtration and sham filtration for three weeks each in random order. Results Median PNC under HEPA filtration was 50–85% lower compared to sham filtration in most homes, but we found no benefit in terms of reduced inflammation; associations between hsCRP, IL-6, or TNFRII in blood samples and associations with indoor PNC were inverse and not statistically significant. Conclusions Limitations to our study design likely contributed to our findings. Limitations included carry-over effects, a population that may have been relatively unresponsive to UFP, reduction in PNC, even during sham filtration, that limited differences between HEPA and sham filtration, window opening by participants, and lack of fine-grained (room-specific) participant time-activity information. Our approach was similar to other recent HEPA intervention studies of particulate matter exposure and cardiovascular risk, suggesting that there may be a need to improve study designs.