The AQHI downplays exposures from particulate pollution

By -
How much is a human life worth? If you live in rural British Columbia or in resource-based communities like Kamloops you may be surprised to learn that your life is worth far less than someone from Vancouver or Victoria.

Recent forest fires in the interior of BC, and the massive amounts of wood smoke produced, demonstrate how risk communication tools like the Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) are designed to treat differentially exposures across populations.

The AQHI is a scale used in Canada to weigh the relative contribution of three air pollutants; namely, particulate matter in the 2.5 micron range (PM2.5), ground level ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. It normally ranges between 1-10 or from “low” to “very high” health risk but can reach numbers like 49 as was recorded on August 3, 2017, in Kamloops.

The formula used for calculating the AQHI is straightforward and it involves using a three-hour average for these pollutants in micrograms/m3 for PM2.5, and parts-per-billion (ppb) for ozone and nitrogen dioxide. A weight is assigned to each of these pollutants based on observed adverse health outcomes.

In BC, the air quality objective for PM2.5 (24-hour average) is 25 micrograms/m3. With recent forest fires, numbers have been in the 150-200 range for several consecutive weeks.

The AQHI is mathematically flawed and out of line with these objectives. It downplays the significance of PM2.5 exposures and it generates low AQHI levels when air pollution risks from PM2.5 are actually high.

For example, a community exposed to no nitrogen dioxide, no ozone, and 100 micrograms/m3 of PM2.5 pollution yields an AQHI of 5, or “moderate risk.”  This is actually a staggering amount of pollution yet the risk messaging is tempered and muted. It would take 400 micrograms/m3 of PM2.5 with this scenario to hit a 10 on the AQHI. China issues “red alert” warnings when 24-hour averages exceed 150 micrograms/m3.

The AQHI poorly protects people in rural and resource-based communities from particulate pollution, and it seems designed more for urban environments where ozone and nitrogen dioxide pollution are more common. As a result, this tool exposes us to higher levels of risk.




Michael D. Mehta, Ph.D. (August 8, 2017) 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PurpleAir sensor readings are virtually indistinguishable from government monitors according to new peer reviewed study

By -
In August of 2016, the Gabriola Island Clear Air Society brought online the first PurpleAir sensor network in Canada. Our sensor network has documented extensively the staggering amount of air pollution coming from wood stoves and fireplaces on our tiny island. As the number of PurpleAir sensors expanded across the province and elsewhere in Canada, many began to raise questions about the accuracy of these low-cost devices. There have been several studies to-date that all show the same thing: these devices work, are accurate, reliable, and fill in gaps in air quality monitoring. The newest study from Australia by Dr. Dorothy Robinson provides definitive evidence that should quash any concerns about using PurpleAir sensors. See the study here .  Gabriola Island Clean Air Society director Dr. Michael Mehta has the following to say about this study. This paper provides empirical evidence to show that the use of low-cost PM2.5 monitors for measuring air quality on a distributed basis has me
Read more

The local effects are staggering and patently unfair

By -
Image
We have a very serious wood smoke problem here on Gabriola Island, and there is no doubt that almost 100% of the problem is due to individuals burning wood at home for residential heating. Here's a snapshot from 10:30AM on October 10, 2016, of a new sensor in the Pat Burns area. This level of particulate matter exposure is very hazardous. Note the other readings in the region, especially the sensor only 400m away (as the crow flies) with a reading of 7 at the same time.
Read more