4 ms·

> Since its creation, STEM has evolved to cover a broader set of key air pollutants, such as ozone and particulate matter, I've always found air quality metric

by culi 2y ago

> Since its creation, STEM has evolved to cover a broader set of key air pollutants, such as ozone and particulate matter, I've always found air quality metrics focusing on particle size confusing. E.g. PM2.5 (which describes fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller) But surely there must be a massive qualitative difference between particulate matter of, e.g., lead vs particulate matter of, e.g., pollen or fungal spores, right? How useful is it really to lump all of these together?

londons_explore 2y ago
Indeed - clearly it matters what the particles are made from. Some stuff won't even be toxic, like particles of water (fog).
jvanderbot 2y ago
Yes - there are other poisons as well hidden behind those particles, but it's very hard to measure the composition of those particles in real time. Particulate matter can be measured with a $20 sensor from Sparkfun, so it's an often-used proxy. As for why the particles sizes are differentiated, I think it's because some sizes can cross barriers into the blood - and are therefore concerning regardless of the contents. pm 2.5 can reach the deepest parts of the lungs and just muck up that whole area regardless and cause all kinds of systemic inflammation. pm 10.0 generally doesn't reach that deep but still causes eye/ nose/ throat problems IIRC. If there is near-zero or undetectable particulate matter, then that would preclude lead particles as well, obviously.
- culi 2y ago
  This seems like a reasonable explanation, thanks
- hatmatrix 2y ago
  It's widely thought but not conclusively found that there are certain constituents that are more toxic than others. As you say, the problem lies in the ability to measure these constituents more widely. However, there is a hypothesis [1] that maybe there is something about the collective mass as negative association with health effects have been found all over the world where the composition changes drastically. A more recent hypothesis [e.g., 2] is that many health problems from particles stem from persistent reactive oxygen species that cause oxidative stress, and these reactive species form from many different mechanisms so likely scales with the collective mass, which has been serving as a surrogate metric. [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00513-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00513-6 [2] https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32916 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32916
taeric 2y ago
I mean, yes, toxins in the air are worse than non-toxins in the air. I don't think anyone will really debate that. The banal answer to your question is you measure what is easy to measure. And it is easier to build a device that can measure size of particles than one that can enumerate all of the types. Especially since you will take the same actions regardless? Put up a filter and run it.
- hollerith 2y ago
  >Put up a filter and run it. It's not that simple because any filtration media that will filter out, e.g., diesel exhaust or pollen will lyse the bacteria that are always floating in the air, thereby adding to the air that leaves the filtration device the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) toxin that without the action of the filtration device would remain relatively-safely inside the bacterium. Yes, even without any air purifiers, you will absorb some LPS toxin from the bacteria in the air you breath, but running an air purifier approximately doubles the dose. I claim to be able to tell the difference in that when I'm in a small room with an air purifier running at high fan speed, I am much more likely to feel a certain kind of non-severe, but not-good headache-like feeling. I.e., you don't want to run an air purifier that removes very small particles from the air when you don't need to -- at least if you are as sensitive to LPS as I am. And you don't want the fan speed of the purifier's being higher than necessary.
  - InitialLastName 2y ago
    I'm gonna need a source on that, as the only relevant thing that comes up on a search for "lipopolysaccharide toxin air filter" is a single study [0] that tested a single air purifier (whose filter had not been changed in a year) in a single room. It includes the telling phrase: "The conclusions here, however, should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size here." [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202031833X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
    - hollerith 2y ago
      >I'm gonna need a source on that Sadly, I was unable to find a link to the study I got my info from after searching my notes for about 7 minutes.
nonamousnoose 2y ago
They are separated by size because that determines which airways they migrate to, and which can enter the bloodstream. Yes, what they're made of matters - the latter is also measured in specific studies, but the former is a lot easier/cheaper to systematically measure.
wnevets 2y ago
Focusing on PM 2.5 makes sense because anything that size and smaller tend to cause the most harm. [1] [1] https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basic... > Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Presumably smaller particles are also more difficult to filter (and therefore more likely to make their way indoors without dedicated filtration), and also expected to remain airborne for a greater distance and duration (because of square cube things).
  - hedgehog 2y ago
    PM2.5 is around the hardest size to filter, I don't understand the physics but both larger and smaller are actually easier to remove from the air. Given that 2.5 is a useful estimate of worst case performance for a given setup.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      Basically a HEPA/electrostatic filter works in two ways. As a “physical” filter (think fishing net), works well on big particles. As an electrostatic filter, works best with really small, works by electrically attracting particles and having them stick. 2.5 micron is in the middle crossover range where total net effectiveness is worst. Respirators are rated at the same size for the same reason.
  - LordDragonfang 2y ago
    >Presumably smaller particles are also more difficult to filter So, that may or may not be true for just passive filtering (like door and window frames), but it's actually not true for actual hepa-style filters, because the physics of particulate filtering is totally unintuitive from the macro level -- past a certain point, finer particulates actually become easier to filter, because the physics is dominated by two different effects at different sizes. https://dynomight.net/ikea-purifier/#on-physics https://dynomight.net/ikea-purifier/#on-physics
BunsanSpace 2y ago
Canada is updating their model to be the worst of PM2.5 and their traditional models of common pollutants. Part of the issue is the existing model does an average over 3 hours, where PM2.5 can change rapidly (fire, traffic surge, &c). So they have a second metric that is averaged over an hour.
- hadlock 2y ago
  Putting a frozen pizza in the oven can spike most apartments to 300 in under 10-12 min, especially if you leave it in too long at 450F
photochemsyn 2y ago
Getting the data on the chemical composition of the PM2.5 fraction of air pollution requires fairly advanced instrumentation and lab capabilities. It is the important data in estimating toxicity, for example: https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU24/EGU24-881.html https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU24/EGU24-881.html > "It was found that PM chemical composition was major determinant in toxicity assessment rather than its mass concentration."
luma 2y ago
PM2.5 is of interest because it’s a size that your body has a harder time getting rid of. Larger size particles have an easier time being captured by the upper respiratory system. Smaller things might make it into the blood stream and hopefully be filtered by the kidneys. 2.5 microns is right at the point between where either thing is less likely to happen and instead the stuff might get stuck in your lungs.

by culi 2y ago

londons_explore 2y ago

Indeed - clearly it matters what the particles are made from. Some stuff won't even be toxic, like particles of water (fog).

jvanderbot 2y ago

Yes - there are other poisons as well hidden behind those particles, but it's very hard to measure the composition of those particles in real time. Particulate matter can be measured with a $20 sensor from Sparkfun, so it's an often-used proxy. As for why the particles sizes are differentiated, I think it's because some sizes can cross barriers into the blood - and are therefore concerning regardless of the contents. pm 2.5 can reach the deepest parts of the lungs and just muck up that whole area regardless and cause all kinds of systemic inflammation. pm 10.0 generally doesn't reach that deep but still causes eye/ nose/ throat problems IIRC. If there is near-zero or undetectable particulate matter, then that would preclude lead particles as well, obviously.

culi 2y ago
This seems like a reasonable explanation, thanks
hatmatrix 2y ago
It's widely thought but not conclusively found that there are certain constituents that are more toxic than others. As you say, the problem lies in the ability to measure these constituents more widely. However, there is a hypothesis [1] that maybe there is something about the collective mass as negative association with health effects have been found all over the world where the composition changes drastically. A more recent hypothesis [e.g., 2] is that many health problems from particles stem from persistent reactive oxygen species that cause oxidative stress, and these reactive species form from many different mechanisms so likely scales with the collective mass, which has been serving as a surrogate metric. [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00513-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00513-6 [2] https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32916 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32916

taeric 2y ago

I mean, yes, toxins in the air are worse than non-toxins in the air. I don't think anyone will really debate that. The banal answer to your question is you measure what is easy to measure. And it is easier to build a device that can measure size of particles than one that can enumerate all of the types. Especially since you will take the same actions regardless? Put up a filter and run it.

hollerith 2y ago
>Put up a filter and run it. It's not that simple because any filtration media that will filter out, e.g., diesel exhaust or pollen will lyse the bacteria that are always floating in the air, thereby adding to the air that leaves the filtration device the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) toxin that without the action of the filtration device would remain relatively-safely inside the bacterium. Yes, even without any air purifiers, you will absorb some LPS toxin from the bacteria in the air you breath, but running an air purifier approximately doubles the dose. I claim to be able to tell the difference in that when I'm in a small room with an air purifier running at high fan speed, I am much more likely to feel a certain kind of non-severe, but not-good headache-like feeling. I.e., you don't want to run an air purifier that removes very small particles from the air when you don't need to -- at least if you are as sensitive to LPS as I am. And you don't want the fan speed of the purifier's being higher than necessary.
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  I'm gonna need a source on that, as the only relevant thing that comes up on a search for "lipopolysaccharide toxin air filter" is a single study [0] that tested a single air purifier (whose filter had not been changed in a year) in a single room. It includes the telling phrase: "The conclusions here, however, should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size here." [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202031833X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >I'm gonna need a source on that Sadly, I was unable to find a link to the study I got my info from after searching my notes for about 7 minutes.

nonamousnoose 2y ago

They are separated by size because that determines which airways they migrate to, and which can enter the bloodstream. Yes, what they're made of matters - the latter is also measured in specific studies, but the former is a lot easier/cheaper to systematically measure.

wnevets 2y ago

Focusing on PM 2.5 makes sense because anything that size and smaller tend to cause the most harm. [1] [1] https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basic... > Particulate matter contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems. Some particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream. Of these, particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles or PM2.5, pose the greatest risk to health.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
Presumably smaller particles are also more difficult to filter (and therefore more likely to make their way indoors without dedicated filtration), and also expected to remain airborne for a greater distance and duration (because of square cube things).
- hedgehog 2y ago
  PM2.5 is around the hardest size to filter, I don't understand the physics but both larger and smaller are actually easier to remove from the air. Given that 2.5 is a useful estimate of worst case performance for a given setup.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    Basically a HEPA/electrostatic filter works in two ways. As a “physical” filter (think fishing net), works well on big particles. As an electrostatic filter, works best with really small, works by electrically attracting particles and having them stick. 2.5 micron is in the middle crossover range where total net effectiveness is worst. Respirators are rated at the same size for the same reason.
- LordDragonfang 2y ago
  >Presumably smaller particles are also more difficult to filter So, that may or may not be true for just passive filtering (like door and window frames), but it's actually not true for actual hepa-style filters, because the physics of particulate filtering is totally unintuitive from the macro level -- past a certain point, finer particulates actually become easier to filter, because the physics is dominated by two different effects at different sizes. https://dynomight.net/ikea-purifier/#on-physics https://dynomight.net/ikea-purifier/#on-physics

BunsanSpace 2y ago

Canada is updating their model to be the worst of PM2.5 and their traditional models of common pollutants. Part of the issue is the existing model does an average over 3 hours, where PM2.5 can change rapidly (fire, traffic surge, &c). So they have a second metric that is averaged over an hour.

hadlock 2y ago
Putting a frozen pizza in the oven can spike most apartments to 300 in under 10-12 min, especially if you leave it in too long at 450F

photochemsyn 2y ago

Getting the data on the chemical composition of the PM2.5 fraction of air pollution requires fairly advanced instrumentation and lab capabilities. It is the important data in estimating toxicity, for example: https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU24/EGU24-881.html https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU24/EGU24-881.html > "It was found that PM chemical composition was major determinant in toxicity assessment rather than its mass concentration."

luma 2y ago

PM2.5 is of interest because it’s a size that your body has a harder time getting rid of. Larger size particles have an easier time being captured by the upper respiratory system. Smaller things might make it into the blood stream and hopefully be filtered by the kidneys. 2.5 microns is right at the point between where either thing is less likely to happen and instead the stuff might get stuck in your lungs.