Evidence Hub

Air pollution exposure in active versus passive travel modes across five continents: A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis

Marie Ramel-Delobel, S. Heydari, A. D. de Nazelle, D. Praud, P. Salizzoni, B. Fervers, T. Coudon

Environmental Research, 2024

9 citations

Abstract

Epidemiological studies on health effects of air pollution usually estimate exposure at the residential address. However, ignoring daily mobility patterns may lead to biased exposure estimates, as documented in previous exposure studies. To improve the reliable integration of exposure related to mobility patterns into epidemiological studies, we conducted a systematic review of studies across all continents that measured air pollution concentrations in various modes of transport using portable sensors. To compare personal exposure across different transport modes, specifically active versus motorized modes, we estimated pairwise exposure ratios using a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Overall, we included measurements of six air pollutants (black carbon (BC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) and ultrafine particles (UFP)) for seven modes of transport (i.e., walking, cycling, bus, car, motorcycle, overground, underground) from 52 published studies. Compared to active modes, users of motorized modes were consistently the most exposed to gaseous pollutants (CO and NO2). Cycling and walking were the most exposed to UFP compared to other modes. Active vs passive mode contrasts were mostly inconsistent for other particle metrics. Compared to active modes, bus users were consistently more exposed to PM10 and PM2.5, while car users, on average, were less exposed than pedestrians. Rail modes experienced both some lower exposures…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free