Exposure and dose assessment of school children to air pollutants in a tropical coastal-urban area

This study estimates exposure and inhaled dose to air pollutants of children residing in a tropical coastal-urban area in Southeast Brazil. For that, twenty-one children filled their time-activities diaries and wore the passive samplers to monitor NO2. The personal exposure was also estimated using data provided by the combination of WRF-Urban/GEOS-Chem/CMAQ models, and the nearby monitoring station. Indoor/outdoor ratios were used to consider the amount of time spent indoors by children in homes and schools. The model's performance was assessed by comparing the modelled data with concentrations measured by urban monitoring stations. A sensitivity analyses was also performed to evaluate the impact of the model's height on the air pollutant concentrations. The results showed that the mean children's personal exposure to NO2 predicted by the model (22.3 μg/m3) was nearly twice to those measured by the passive samplers (12.3 μg/m3). In contrast, the nearest urban monitoring station did not represent the personal exposure to NO2 (9.3 μg/m3), suggesting a bias in the quantification of previous epidemiological studies. The building effect parameterisation (BEP) together with the lowering of the model height enhanced the air pollutant concentrations and the exposure of children to air pollutants. With the use of the CMAQ model, exposure to O3, PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 was also estimated and revealed that the daily children's personal exposure was 13.4, 38.9, 32.9, and 9.6 μg/m3, respectively. Meanwhile, the potential inhalation daily dose was 570-667 μg for PM2.5, 684-789 μg for PM10, and 163-194 μg for PM1, showing to be favourable to cause adverse health effects. The exposure of children to air pollutants estimated by the numerical model in this work was comparable to other studies found in the literature, showing one of the advantages of using the modelling approach since some air pollutants are poorly spatially represented and/or are not routinely monitored by environmental agencies in many regions.