Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

“I am an air quality scientist”– Using citizen science to characterise school

children’s exposure to air pollution
Diana Varaden a, b, c, d, *, Einar Leidland d, Shanon Lim a, b, d, Benjamin Barratt a, b, c, d
a
NIHR-HPRU Environmental Exposures and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Michael Uren Biomedical Engineering Hub, White City Campus,
Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ , UK
b
MRC Centre for Environment and Health, Environmental Research Group, Imperial College London, UK
c
School of Public Health, Imperial College London Michael Uren Biomedical Engineering HubWhite City Campus, Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ, UK
d
School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King’s College London, FWB Room 4.189, (Corridor B) 150 Stamford
Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of air pollution. To tackle this issue and implement
Children’s exposure to air pollution effective strategies to reduce child exposure, it is important to understand how children are exposed to this risk.
Participatory research This study followed a citizen science approach to air pollution monitoring, aiming to characterise school chil­
Portable air quality sensors
dren’s exposure to air pollution and to analyse how a citizen science approach to data collection could contribute
Awareness raising
to and enhance the research process.
Exposure reduction
258 children across five London primary schools attended air pollution education sessions and measured air
pollution for a week using backpacks with built-in air quality sensors. Children received a summary of the results,
advice and information on how to reduce exposure to air pollution. Data on the impact of the approach on the
school community were collected using surveys and focus groups with children and their parents and interviews
with the teachers involved.
The unique data set obtained permitted us to map different routes and modes of transport used by the children
and quantify different exposure levels. We identified that, on average, children were exposed to higher levels of
air pollution when travelling to and from school, particularly during the morning journey where air pollution
levels were on average 52% higher than exposures at school. Children who walked to and from school through
busy main roads were exposed to 33% higher levels of air pollution than those who travelled through back
streets. The findings from this study showed that using a citizen science approach to data collection, where
children are actively involved in the research process, not only facilitated the gathering of a large data set by
encouraging participation and stimulating adherence with the study protocol, but also increased children’s
awareness of air pollution, encouraging them to adopt positive behaviour changes to reduce their exposure.

1. Introduction
The invisible but significant risk that air pollution poses to young
children’s health has been widely recognised; children are particularly
vulnerable due to their immature and developing immune system and
lungs, lower body weight and relatively high inhalation rate (Gehring
et al., 2013, Kim, 2004; Holgate et al., 2016; Suglia et al., 2008; GAU­
DERMAN et al., 2007). Air pollution arises from a complex mix of gases
and particles, which can be of natural origin or anthropogenic.
Particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are major compo­
nents of urban air pollution. According to a report from the World
Health Organisation (WHO), more than 90% of the world’s children live
in areas with air pollution levels above the WHO air quality guideline for
PM2.5 annual mean (10 μg m− 3), leading to illness and health burdens
that can last a lifetime (World Health Organisation, 2018). Air pollution
can inhibit children’s lung development and as a result increase their
vulnerability to chronic disease and respiratory exacerbations (Chen
et al., 2015; Gehring et al., 2013). A study in London reported that the

* Corresponding author. NIHR-HPRU Environmental Exposures and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Michael Uren Biomedical Engi­
neering Hub, White City Campus, Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ, UK.
E-mail addresses: diana.varaden@imperial.ac.uk (D. Varaden), einar.leidland@kcl.ac.uk (E. Leidland), s.lim@imperial.ac.uk (S. Lim), b.barratt@imperial.ac.uk
(B. Barratt).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111536
Received 24 January 2021; Received in revised form 26 May 2021; Accepted 12 June 2021
Available online 22 June 2021
0013-9351/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
D. Varaden et al.
capacity of children’s lungs was reduced by about 5% when NO2 was
above the EU’s annual limit of 40 μg m− 3 (Mudway et al., 2019). There is
also evidence that exposure to air pollution can affect children’s neu­
rodevelopment and long-term cognitive health (Liu and Lewis, 2014;
Clifford A et al., 2016). Children attending schools that have higher
levels of traffic-related air pollution have been found to exhibit lower
rates of cognitive development compared to children attending schools
located in less polluted areas (Sunyer et al., 2015).
The quality of the air has been traditionally assessed through fixed-
site continuous air quality monitoring stations, placed at background
sites or traffic hotspots. While this type of monitoring is effective in
tracking trends and for legislative monitoring, it is expensive to install
and maintain, limiting who gathers the data, why the data are gathered
and how they are accessed (Snyder et al., 2013). Furthermore, fixed-site
measurements may not be representative of the air pollution an indi­
vidual breathes, due to the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of air
pollution (Steinle et al., 2013). Advances in air pollution sensor tech­
nology, such as miniaturisation, reliability and economic accessibility,
have not only increased the feasibility of gathering real-time air pollu­
tion measurements at any location (Gabrys, 2016; Snyder et al., 2013),
but they have also made it possible for diverse members of the public to
carry out their own air pollution measurements - something that has
traditionally only been performed by specialised scientists, following
strict protocols. While these sensors do not replace conventional air
pollution monitors, they do provide multiple benefits including
increasing the spatial coverage of monitored areas, capturing exposure
microenvironments, such as indoors and insider vehicles, and raising
individuals’ awareness of exposure to air pollution (Snyder et al., 2013;
Nieuwenhuijsen et al., 2015).
To tackle the air pollution issue and implement effective strategies to
reduce child exposure, is important to understand how children are
exposed to this risk, and where and when the risks are highest. Several
studies have used portable air pollution monitors and GPS tracking de­
vices to measure children’s exposure to a range of pollutants, doc­
umenting the different activities and places where children were most
likely to be exposed to high levels. A study conducted in Barcelona
(Rivas et al., 2016) measured the personal black carbon (BC) levels of 45
primary school children from 25 different schools over a 48-h period.
This study showed that the participants were exposed to the highest
levels of BC during commutes and the lowest levels while at home. Jeong
and Park (2017) assessed the exposure of 40 primary school Korean
children to BC over a 24-h period, using personal monitoring. They
found that commuting in diesel vehicles and subways, as well as cooking
and exposure to passive smoking in the home, led to elevated BC
exposure. Buonanno et al. (2013) in Italy, gathered personal exposure
measurements of Ultrafine Particles (UFP) and BC over two consecutive
days, from 103 primary school children. This study identified cooking
and commuting to school (by car, walk or bus) as the main activities
contributing to the overall daily exposure, cooking activities presented
the highest dose intensity for UFPs while transportation presented the
highest dose intensity for BC. A study in a mid-sized Canadian city
examined PM2.5 and GPS tracking data from 101 commutes (36 students
across two schools) to and from school, and identified that students that
travel to school on foot were exposed to lower PM2.5 levels than those
who travel to school in cars or riding the school bus (Gilliland et al.,
2019). While these and other studies have contributed to un­
derstandings of children’s exposure to air pollution, they all have rela­
tively short sampling periods and/or small subject sample size.
Obtaining a realistic estimation of children’s exposures to air
pollution can present great challenges, including those associated with
ethics - consent, confidentiality and protection issues. Equally,
measuring children’s air pollution exposure poses logistical challenges,
particularly related to adherence to the monitoring protocol. This is
particularly important if researchers want to avoid adult surrogates who
can introduce bias, since time-space-activity patterns are different from
those of children (Branco et al., 2014). Studies that have aimed at
2
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
measuring children’s personal exposure to air pollution have also noted
that data gathering can be very labour-intensive and a possibly
burdensome for children, affecting compliance, and ultimately affecting
the number of available data measurements (Nieuwenhuijsen et al.,
2015).
As part of an interdisciplinary intervention, this study followed a
citizen science approach to air pollution monitoring (researching with
people rather than on people). The citizen science framework is char­
acterised by promoting sustainability through citizen science, building
capacity and developing participatory methods for cooperation,
empowerment and impact. Most formal citizen science projects are of
contributory nature, designed and run by scientists, and citizens act as
“contributors” (Bonney, 2009, Wildschut, 2017) with different scienti­
fic, educational and engagement objectives. Citizen science in­
terventions are characterised by not only providing benefits to scientists,
research groups and funding institutions, but by also providing an op­
portunity for the public to actively engage in scientific investigations,
therefore, improving citizen’s literacy and nurturing their curiosity in
science, (Miller-Rushing et al., 2012).
Citizen science initiatives have been used extensively in the air
pollution field, becoming an important tool for engaging with people in
air pollution affairs, creating projects aimed to achieve social objectives
(Snik, 2014; Commodore, 2017; Minkler, 2010; Corburn, 2005; Kondo,
2014; Gabrys, 2016, Varaden et al., 2018). Children have also been
involved in citizen science, largely through environmental projects
where they learned from and contributed to environmental knowledge,
education and scientific enquiry (Makuch, 2018). Children’s participa­
tion in citizen science projects have been said to “move scientific content
from the abstract to the tangible” (Jenkins, 2011).
We aimed to conduct a large-scale study that (i) characterised school
children’s exposure to air pollution (PM2.5) during a typical school week
using low-cost sensors and (ii) assessed the extent to which a citizen
science approach to data collection could contribute to and impact the
research development and outcomes. We hypothesised that this partic­
ipatory approach would prove to be a powerful tool for raising chil­
dren’s awareness of air pollution, which is essentially invisible. In
addition, citizen science has the potential to support children’s learning
and their understanding of science, while at the same time encouraging
them to protect the environment (Makuch, 2018).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study population
Over 400 primary schools in London are located in areas where
pollution concentrations exceed the annual mean NO2 EU Limit Value of
40 μg m− 3 (Greater London Authority, 2018), while the latest London
wide modelling for 2016 found that the WHO health guideline for PM2.5
was not being met anywhere in London (Greater London Authority,
2019). Currently there is no clear evidence of a safe level of pollutant
exposure or a threshold below which no adverse health effects occur
(World Health Organization, 2005, Public Health England, 2018).
The study population consisted of 258 children, aged 7–11 years,
from five primary schools in Greater London (Fig. S1). The participating
schools were part of the 2017 Mayor’s School Air Quality Audit Pro­
gramme (Greater London Authority, 2018), carried out in 50 primary
schools located in the most polluted areas of London where the annual
legal limit for NO2 was often exceeded. All participating schools were
located in busy urban areas, where children have to commute all or part
of their journey to and from school through heavily trafficked roads
(Table 1). Participating schools’ admission criteria required children to
D. Varaden et al.
Table 1
School monitoring week and location description.
School Monitoring Participating Location notes
week children
School 11th March - 43 All children who travel to school
A 15th March on foot have to walk along the
very busy and heavily trafficked
Upper Richmond Road West
(average daily vehicles – single
carriage way 24,800) to access
the school grounds.
School 18th March - 55 The school is situated on a narrow
B 22nd March two-way local street which
connects with the dual
carriageway South Circular Road
about 40 m to the west of the
school. Around 200 m from the
school to the north, is the A2,
another dual carriageway
(average daily vehicles – single
carriage way 49,681).
School 25th March - 61 The school is located within the
C 29th March vicinity of Lordship Lane, a
heavily trafficked A-Road
(average daily vehicles – single
carriage way 15,527) The school
is accessed from three locations.
Two of the entrances are on a
speed restricted road and a cul-
de-sac. The third entrance is on a
side road.
School 29th April - 3rd 35 The main entrance to the school is
D May on a side road at the rear of the
school. The majority of children
approach the school from Fulham
Palace Road, which is a busy road
with large number of buses and
HGVs (average daily vehicles –
single carriage way 11,784).
School 20th May - 24th 64 The school is just north of the
E May A3216, which is used by large
number of buses, taxis and service
vehicles (average daily vehicles –
single carriage way 15,727).
live within its catchment area, meaning that most of the pupils lived
within walking distance.1 No school buses were operated in any of the
participating schools.
The child engagement and selection process took different forms at
each of the participating schools, at the discretion of the school gate­
keeper. Some schools chose, in the first instance, to make the opportu­
nity available to those groups already established in the school, such as a
School Council, Sustainability Committee and/or Travel Ambassadors.
Other schools preferred to open the invitation to all children and offered
the available places on a first-come first-serve basis via the signed parent
consent form. Prior to participation in the study all parents or guardians
signed the consent form approved by the King’s College London BDM
Research Ethics Subcommittee RESCM-18/19–9017.
2.2. Study design
This study took place between March and July 2019. This study
began by inviting all participating children to an air pollution educa­
tional lesson delivered by the research team (Fig. 1a) held at each of the
participating schools. The purpose of this education session was to a)
provide children with information about the causes and health effects of
air pollution, b) explain the different methods and tools normally used
1
For children aged over 5 but under the age of 8 the statutory walking dis­
tance in the UK is 2 miles. For children aged over the age of 8 and under 16 the
statutory walking distance is 3 miles (Department of Education, 2014).
3
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
by scientists to measure air pollution and c) involve children in the
research process, by highlighting the importance of their role in
measuring by themselves the air pollution they were likely to breathe
when going about their normal school week. The research team
endeavoured to explain difficult concepts according to children’s aca­
demic ability and experience, avoiding the use of jargon.
After the education session, children were given a backpack incor­
porating a small air pollution sensor. Children carried the backpack
(Fig. 1b) for five consecutive days (Monday-Friday). To reduce the
participant burden and reduce the possibility of tampering, the air
pollution sensors were entirely autonomous and inaccessible by the
children. The sensors were pre-programmed to sample each day be­
tween 06:00–11:00 a.m. and 14:00–20:00, capturing data from the
commutes to and from school, even if this did not occur at conventional
hours (e.g. children attending breakfast club and, or staying until late at
school in after school clubs). All participating children in the school
carried the backpack on the same week. They were given an ‘I’m an air
quality scientist’ badge to display on their backpack.
During the monitoring period a daily transport diary was completed
by each child in a given format. Following a preliminary data analysis, a
brief summary of the air pollution monitoring results was presented at
each of the participating schools. Children also received a printout of the
results summary to take home, which contained advice and information
about how to reduce exposure to air pollution.
To assess the impact that participation in the study had on children’s
and parents’ perceptions of and practices towards air quality, all par­
ticipants were invited to take part in a pre-and post-engagement survey
(before and after the children carried the backpacks). To complement
and contextualise the data gathered from the surveys, focus groups with
the children and their parents, and interviews with some of the teachers
involved, were also conducted. A flow chart describing the study stages
can be found in Fig. S2.
2.3. Sensor quality assurance
The N609 air quality sensor unit developed by Dyson was selected to
be used during this study. These units were selected after undergoing a
competitive selection process (Barratt and Lim, 2019). The unit incor­
porated a GPS tracker and sensors capturing PM2.5, NO2, temperature
and humidity. The PM2.5 sensor was the Sensirion SPS030 optical par­
ticle counter (OPC) (Sensrion AG, Switzerland). Previous studies have
found that it is a high performing OPC sensor (Bulot et al., 2020). The
NO2 sensor used was a Sensirion metal-oxide electrochemical sensor
(Khan, 2019) (Sensrion AG, Switzerland, 2021).
The sensor unit was placed in the front pocket of a normal size school
backpack (Fig. 2), Each child’s exposure to NO2 and PM2.5, as well as
their GPS-location were collected at a 1-s interval and stored within the
backpacks’ logging unit. Logged data were encrypted to ensure ano­
nymity should the backpack be lost or stolen. The power to the unit was
provided by a battery, which was securely locked in a separate
compartment in the backpack. The main compartment of the backpack
was empty allowing children to use this space to keep their school es­
sentials. 100 backpacks were used in the study.
All sensors were calibrated by co-location with reference monitors to
ensure accuracy of measurements made. After the study fieldwork, all of
the backpacks were placed on the roof of the London Air Quality
Network reference monitoring station at Honor Oak Park (Defra, 2019)
and monitored continuously for five days (Fig. S3). Deming regression
was applied to co-location data from each backpack in comparison with
matched reference data to produce an R2, scaling factor and zero offset.
For PM2.5, All R2 values were >0.75, indicating very good sensor
agreement with the reference monitor. The mean (standard deviation)
scaling factor and offset was 1.03 (0.05) and − 1.70 (0.17) respectively,
demonstrating good accuracy and precision. Due to illness and other
family circumstances which prevented some children from attending the
school and returning the backpacks, 11 backpacks out of 100 were not
D. Varaden et al.
Fig. 1. Children attending an air pollution educational session in one of the participating schools (a), children carrying the monitoring backpacks (b).
Fig. 2. Backpack - Air pollution sensor.
available for calibration, in which case mean factors were used.
Calibration results for the NO2 sensors showed relatively poor cor­
relation against reference monitor results. As no robust calibration fac­
tors could be derived for this pollutant only the PM2.5 data analysis and
results are presented here.
2.4. Exposure data analysis
The encrypted data gathered were downloaded to a secure university
server from the air pollution monitors immediately after the backpacks
were collected from the participants. The data were decrypted and im­
ported into a relational database for further analysis. A statistical
method was developed in R (R Core Team, 2019) to examine the vari­
ation in pupils mean exposure to PM2.5 in different microenvironments
during the school week. The bespoke algorithm included several steps to
classify 1 min mean data points into three categories (i) invalid data, (ii)
indoors, (iii) commute. The indoors category was further subdivided
into ‘at home’, ‘at school’ and ‘other’. The commute category was sub­
divided by transport mode, including walk, cycle, car, bus, train, metro.
Finally, mean PM2.5 exposure levels were calculated for each category.
Following aggregation into 1-min means, calibration factors were
4
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
applied as described above. A series of further QA/QC checks flagged as
invalid data points relating to malfunctioning sensors or covered inlets
preventing free flow of air.
School centroid coordinates were manually identified using Google
Maps (Google Maps, 2019). Home coordinates for each participant were
identified using a K-medoid algorithm, which partitioned the data points
into groups based on the most central points in the dataset. The esti­
mation of the optimal number of clusters and the allocation of data
points into clusters was performed using the packages factoextra and
cluster within R-studio (R Core Team, 2019).
Knowing the home and school coordinates made it possible to
identify commutes, as well as classification of indoor periods outside the
home and school (classified as ‘other’). After identifying commutes, each
commute with a max speed <6 km h− 1 based on GPS data, was tagged as
walking. Mode of transport for the remaining commutes were classified
based on the self-reported information in participants’ travel diaries
(bus, car, bicycle, train and metro). We excluded all commuting trips
that lasted under 5 min. Train and metro trips were too few to produce
robust results and were therefore excluded from the results.
Fifteen-minute average PM2.5 ambient concentrations were obtained
from the long-term fixed urban background reference station in North
Kensington London (Defra, 2019b) during the period the children were
conducting their measurements to compare to children’s exposure.
Hourly meteorological variables were sourced from the “worldmet”
package (Carslaw, 2019) in R including temperature, relative humidity,
wind speed from the St James’s Park and Heathrow weather stations.
These were the closest available sites to the schools.
Prior to the final statistical analysis, manual tagging of main roads
and back streets was conducted using QGIS. For the purpose of our
analysis, we classified all A-roads2 as ‘main road’, these were the prin­
cipal roads in each of the five school’s neighbourhoods. The remaining
roads were tagged as ‘back street’ with a few exceptions.
Personal air quality data typically follows a log-normal distribution
(De Nazelle et al., 2017), therefore exposure summaries are discussed
using geometric means. Statistical analysis of PM2.5 exposure data was
carried out using R statistics (R Core Team, 2019). Due to non-normality
of data Kruskall Wallis tests were used to test significant differences
2
A roads have been defined by the Department of Transport as “major roads
intended to provide large-scale transport links within or between areas”
Department of Transport, 2012. Statutory guidance. Guidance on road classifica­
tion and the primary route network. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/go
vernment/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-rou
te-network/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network
[Accessed]..
D. Varaden et al.
between the PM2.5 exposure between different microenvironments and
transport modes. Post hoc tests were run using pairwise Dunns tests,
using ‘Holm’ adjustment. Differences were considered statistically sig­
nificant for p < 0.05. Exposure contrasts between microenvironments
and transport modes were also expressed as percentage change for each
school individually, then aggregated to estimate overall percentage
change. This relative method minimised the impact of differences in
absolute concentrations driven by meteorological conditions prevalent
during each school’s monitoring week.
2.5. Assessing the impact of the approach
Using a mixed-methods research design which included surveys,
focus groups and interviews, we assessed to which extent the citizen
science approach used contributed to and impacted our research
development and outcomes.
Surveys: Two surveys were offered to all children and parents that
took part in the monitoring. The pre-engagement parent survey was sent
to parents as part of the study information pack which contained the
Information Sheets and Consent Forms. Parents were asked to return to
the school the completed survey and the signed consent form, if they
wished for their children to take part in the study. The pre-engagement
child surveys were administered to all participating children before the
education lesson took place. The parents received the post-engagement
survey together with the summary of the results, while children were
asked to complete their post-engagement surveys at school, two weeks
after receiving the summary of the results.
The pre and post surveys asked parents questions about a) travel
practices to and from school and b) views and perceptions towards air
pollution in and around their children school. The post survey also asked
questions about any changes in practices that could have arisen as a
result of taking part in the study and having seen the study findings. The
children’s pre and post study surveys asked questions about their mode
of travel when commuting to and from school, and their understanding
of air pollution causes and effects. Children post-survey also asked
question about changes in practices adopted after taking part in the
project. Both surveys are included in the supporting information (S5).
Focus groups: To stimulate further discussion, and to complement the
data gathered from the surveys, following the dissemination of the air
pollution monitoring data results, all participating parents were invited
to take part in scheduled focus groups at each school. These focus groups
were designed for up to eight parents, and places were allocated on a
first come first served basis. Focus groups were also conducted with all
participating children. For this purpose, children were grouped in
groups of ten, according to age, at each of the participating schools. The
purpose of the focus groups was to a) gather general feedback on the
intervention, b) answer questions regarding the results and c) assess the
potential impact that participating in the intervention had on their
views, perceptions and practices towards air pollution.
Interviews: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with some of
the teachers that were directly involved in the study (e.g. school gate­
keeper, year group teacher, sustainability coordinator). These in­
terviews aimed to capture the teachers’ views and perceptions of the
study within their school community. These interviews lasted 15 min on
average. With the permission of the participants, focus groups and in­
terviews were audio recorded.
The topic guides for the focus groups and the interviews are included
in the supporting information (S5).
The survey data were processed and analysed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Data from audio recordings was
systematically coded in full by the research team. Codes were then
organized to construct larger themes (Miles, 2020).
3. Results
During this study children were positively engaged and enthusiastic
5
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
about gathering their own data by carrying a bag during a whole school
week; 93% (1923 out of 2064 periods) of all morning and afternoon
commutes were captured by the children. Those missing periods were
due to children’s absence from school, and in very few instances, when
children forgot to carry the bag to or from school. More significant data
loss (32%) was caused by loss of GPS signal or covered sensor inlet
(Table S2).
3.1. Children’s exposure to PM2.5 during a typical school day
From the questionnaire responses, approximately 45% of the chil­
dren’s commutes took between 0 and 10 min, 24% between 10 and 15
min and 22% between 15 and 30 min. Just 5% of these journeys were
reported to take longer than 45 min.
Participant personal PM2.5 levels varied during the day across all
schools (Fig. 3). We identified that, on average, children were exposed to
higher levels of air pollution when travelling to and from school,
particularly during the morning journey (7:00–9:00 a.m.) where air
pollution levels were on average 52% higher (geometric mean = 8.6 μg
m− 3) than exposures at school (5.4 μg m− 3). PM2.5 levels during the
afternoon commute (6.5 μg m− 3) were on average 19% higher than
those at school (Table S3). PM2.5 concentrations registered the lowest
levels during the periods measured at school. Individual school results
are presented in Table S4.
Statistical tests found that exposure at school was significantly lower
than commuting periods for all schools except School A (Table S4). In
comparison to background PM2.5, ambient concentrations were slightly
lower than children’s exposure to (7.6 μg m− 3) and from school (6.3 μg
m− 3). However, background concentrations (6.5 μg m− 3) were higher
compared to children’s exposures at school (Table S5).
Fig. 3 also illustrates the temporal and spatial variability of the PM2.5
measurements recorded across all schools. Weather events, can greatly
affect the dispersal, build-up and transport of air pollutants, causing
particulate pollution levels to change (Feng and Wang, 2012). In our
study, the lowest PM2.5 concentrations were registered at School A
despite being located on a major “A road”, which is normally used by
most children as an access route to the school. The low concentrations
measured in School A could be attributed to the observed predominant
windy conditions presented during most of the monitoring week
(meteorological summaries presented in Table S5). It has been reported
that wind speed appears to have a significant effect on personal exposure
levels (Adams et al., 2001). Ambient temperature and relative humidity
in this study were not observed to have a noticeable effect on children’s
exposure between schools, likely because all measurements were made
in the same season.
Fig. 3. Concentrations of PM2.5 over the monitoring period for all participating
schools (Table S4).
D. Varaden et al. Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536

3.2. Transport activity patterns and exposure to PM2.5

Active travel was the most prevalent mode of transportation to and

from school (56%), this included either walking, cycling or scooting.
Motorised transportation by private car and bus accounted for 15% and
7% of journeys respectively. The remaining 22% of children travelled
using a combination of transport modes including active travel, bus, car
and a small percentage (2%) also used metro and/or train for part of
their journey. Fig. 4 shows the transport modes used by the children
during the monitoring period by participating school.
It was observed that during the afternoon (school pick up period),
there was a 5% decrease in active travel, offset by an increase in
motorised travel. When we asked parents, what influenced how their
children travel to school, 28% said that “convenience” was the most
influencing factor, 18% said “speed” and 18% said “habit”. Other factors
such as “getting physical activity” “reducing environmental impact” and
to “breathe clean air” were reported to be less important.
The results obtained from our PM2.5 measurements (Fig. 5) showed
that on average across all schools, children that walked through the
main roads were exposed to 33% higher levels of air pollution (8.7 μg
m− 3) than those who travelled to and from school through the back
streets (6.3 μg m− 3) (Table S6). It has been reported that PM2.5 often
occurs at higher concentrations near major roadways due to gasoline
and diesel engine exhaust (Brugge et al., 2007). In this study we
observed that occasionally, quieter roads registered short spikes in
PM2.5. levels, likely to be due to individual polluting vehicles driving
past, or second-hand tobacco smoke.
It has previously been found that exposure levels of PM2.5 are lower
for active commuters than for those travelling the same route in a car or
bus (Gilliland et al., 2019). During this study, we identified that on
average across all schools, exposure to PM2.5, was 8% higher for those
children that were driven to and or from school or that took the bus (7.3
μg m− 3) compared to those children that walked through back streets
(away from roads with heavy traffic) (6.3 μg m− 3) (Table S6).
The high resolution of the recorded data gathered, as well as the
differences that microenvironments can have on PM2.5 concentrations
over short periods of time, are presented using an example of a child’s
commute to and from school using different transport modes (Fig. 6). In
the example provided, the child’s exposure levels show a sharp increase
when they start their morning commute to school by car, and drop once
they arrive at school. The same afternoon, the child travels back home
walking, taking back streets at the beginning of their journey, they then
cross main roads and a busy junction, where PM2.5 levels increased.
Exposure levels declined once they reached home. The map next to the
graph shows the route the child took.
In the example above, a large part of the route could have been taken
through quieter back streets, therefore reducing the overall exposure to
PM2.5. during the school commute.
Fig. 5. Concentrations of PM2.5 for all participating schools, according to
commute choices to and from school (Table S6).
3.3. Impacts of participation
Insights into participants’ perceptions of air pollution as well as the
reported changes in practices to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants
as a result of taking part in the study are provided here and detailed in
the supporting information (S5).
The pre-study parents and children’s surveys had 93% (n = 240) and
85% (n = 220) response rates respectively. The post-parents survey had
20% response rate (n = 51) and the post-children survey 70% (n = 180).
To complement and contextualise the data gathered from the surveys,
upon completion of the study, we conducted 25 focus groups with the
participating children (8–10 children in each group), 3 focus groups
with parents (3,5 and 8 parents in each group respectively) and 10 in­
terviews with teachers involved in the study.
Knowledge and awareness changes. Children’s willingness to
participate in the project was commonly driven by a desire to identify by
themselves what they were exposed to - “I wanted to do this project to see
how much we are putting our bodies and lungs at risk” (Child). 85% of the
children surveyed (pre-survey) said that they were aware of air pollu­
tion, compared to 98% during the second survey (after the project). One-
third of respondents also said that they have heard about air pollution in
the school (from assembly, lessons and guest speakers), this stayed
consistent between the surveys (33% in the pre-survey and 32% in the
post survey). Parents highlighted the benefits of prompting discussions
about air pollution in the school, as children can learn and then
disseminate the information they gathered, encouraging their families to
change practices - “I think awareness should start at school, because you tell

Fig. 4. Transport modes of participating children during the monitoring periods. *Active travel: walk/scoot/cycle.

6
D. Varaden et al.
Fig. 6. Example of a child’s commute to and from school, on a typical school day. Data points within 100 m of the child’s home has been excluded.
a child something and they will think, ‘yeah you are right, we shouldn’t be
doing that!, so then they go home and they will pester their parents ‘don’t take
the car today mum’, ‘let’s walk today’. Children do have a force, start with
the schools and you will start seen the difference” (Parent).
Learning about air pollution exposure and spreading the word.
When children were asked what was the part of the study that they liked
the most, 43% responded “carrying the air pollution sensors”, 20% said
“education assembly”, 21% “receiving the results from the air pollution
monitoring” and 16% of the surveyed children found filling in the sur­
veys the most interesting part of the study. More than half of the children
(54%) surveyed after the project, reported to have told their parents and
other adults (relatives, neighbours) about the air pollution project car­
ried out at their school. These included discussions about the health
effects of air pollution - “I explained how air pollution can damage our
lungs and breathing” (Child) - as well as actions they could take to reduce
both their exposure to harmful pollutants and also their own contribu­
tion to the problem - “With the project we found that is better to walk than
drive and if you do drive to school, you could drive a bit, stop and get out of
your car and walk the rest of the way. We also found out that is a lot more
polluted on the main roads and that it is better to go through back streets to go
wherever you are going” (Child). Several children highlighted that they
felt relieved to know that there were actions they could take to reduce
their exposure to harmful pollutants - “I was a bit scared before the project
but now I am happy to know that I can do something about it because I didn’t
know anything about it but now I know that I could walk through the parks or
back roads and try to stay away from traffic as much as possible” (Child).
over 75% of surveyed parents, reported to have talked to family and
friends about the air pollution project their children did at school.
Changing practice to reduce exposure. 31% of the surveyed children
reported to have changed the route to and from school after the project.
Parents were also asked if they had made any changes in how they travel
to and from school after seeing the results of the air pollution project. To
this, 24% of the parents responded “Yes” and 9% responded they were
“planning to”. The changes reported by the parents included changes in
mode of transport (walk instead of driving) and changes in travel route,
(opting for less busy roads). The general feedback from parents after the
project was that they were pleased to hear there was something they
could do to reduce their children’s exposure to harmful pollutants “This
is something we can actually change, we can take our children through a
7
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
different route, there is not much we can actually change about the traffic on
the roads” (Parent).
During the interviews, all teachers agreed that the project had been
very good at engaging with the children, getting them interested in the
environment, particularly in air pollution, raising awareness and stim­
ulating changes in practice to reduce exposure to air pollution - “The
project made the children feel like real scientists, like they were taking part in
something real” (Teacher).
Other qualitative data from the surveys, focus groups and interviews
(not used in this manuscript) are part of another publication (Varaden
et al., 2021).
4. Discussion
The findings from this study showed that using a citizen science
approach to data collection, where children are actively involved in the
research process, can be a useful tool for gathering large data sets
(Miller-Rushing et al., 2012) by encouraging participation and stimu­
lating compliance with study protocols. During this study, adopting a
participatory methodology also showed to have the potential to be an
effective and engaging tool for raising awareness of air pollution as a
health risk amongst school children, by supplementing information
provision which, on its own, has been proven to be insufficient to change
behaviour (Skov et al., 1991; Bush et al., 2001; Beaumont et al., 1999)
with active collection of personalised exposure data.
Citizen science initiatives to measure local air quality around schools
have become popular in recent years (EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENCY, 2019 Health and Environmental Alliance, 2019). These ini­
tiatives have used passive samplers and or low-cost sensors placed in
specific locations to better understand children’s exposure to key pol­
lutants while raising children’s awareness and promoting changes in
behaviour to reduce exposure. However, even though these initiatives
focus on young children, they did not actively involve children gathering
air pollution data, therefore, limiting the children’s contribution to the
decision-making process (where and when to measure air pollution).
Our study adopted a citizen science approach to gather data on chil­
dren’s personal exposure to PM2.5. as they went about their normal
school week, therefore, further engaging children with the data gath­
ering experience and in the co-production of scientific knowledge.
D. Varaden et al.
Carrying the air pollution monitors and gathering their own data was
identified by the children as the most enjoyable part of the study.
The air quality measurements collected during this study were
mostly from the family’s local area, during a typical school week. This
made the findings from the monitoring measurements relevant to the
children’s and their parents‘ daily school commute, including the routes
and modes of transport they chose to get to school. In general, children
across all participating schools reported that taking part in this study
had boosted their level of air pollution awareness and hence, their un­
derstanding of the issue. Through this understanding, children had the
opportunity to analyse their own situations (e.g., places and times where
they were most likely to be exposed to air pollution) and to propose
solutions to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants and or reduce their
own contribution to air pollution (e.g., opting for commuting to and
from school through less busy roads). Active participation in the
research process offered the opportunity to view information in terms of
communication and participation and not only as a simple act of pre­
senting data (Beaumont et al., 1999). Additional longer duration studies
should explore to what extent self-reported changes in behaviour (e.g.,
changing route to commute to and from school) are sustained. Further
research should also investigate differences in school children’s air
pollution exposure taking into account the socioeconomic characteris­
tics of participating schools and children, as it has been reported that
lower socioeconomic status is generally associated with poor air quality
(Fecht, 2015).
In the last few decades, numerous air quality studies have explored
the extent to which primary school children are exposed to air pollution
particularly black carbon (BC) (Rivas et al., 2016), (Jeong and Park,
2017), (Buonanno et al., 2013). However, these studies have based their
findings on results obtained from small sample sizes, either number of
participants, short monitoring periods, or both. This is largely as a result
of the labour intensive logistics surrounding the gathering of large data
sets of school children personal exposure to air pollution. These include,
equipment availability, gatekeeper and parents’ permission and chil­
dren willingness to engage and adhere to protocols. A major strength of
this study was the large number of available monitoring units. By uti­
lising up to 100 backpacks concurrently, we were able to produce robust
personal exposure estimates for large numbers of children and make
direct comparisons relating to travel route, mode of transport and time
of day. Importantly, these data were local to the participants and, by
involving so many children at once, the school felt greater involvement
and ownership of the data. It should, however, be noted that monitoring
between schools was spread over a three-month period (March–May)
where meteorological conditions varied, so absolute comparisons of
PM2.5 exposure between schools should be interpreted with caution.
The air pollution monitoring data gathered in this study allowed us
to identify the levels of air pollution children were exposed to during a
typical school week when travelling to and from school and while at
school. This is particularly important because with this information we
can determine when during a typical school day (outside their home),
children are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of air pollution. It
was found that children exposure to air pollution PM2.5 was higher
during the morning school drop off, which coincides with the morning
peak travel time, compared to the afternoon commute, which to a
greater extent falls outside evening peak travel time. The findings from
this study, are consistent with previous research (Harrison et al., 2012)
which have reported the PM2.5 diurnal peak to be between 07:00–10:00
h, and have suggested rush hour traffic and domestic emissions (do­
mestic heating) can make a significant contribution to the urban back­
ground increment of PM2.5. Thus, for children, traffic related air
pollution can greatly contribute to daily PM2.5 exposures, particularly
when commuting along main roads and or crossing busy junctions
during high-traffic “rush hour” periods (Laumbach et al., 2015). It has
also been reported that while children expend a very short period of
their time commuting, it is during commuting to and from school that
children are at higher risk of exposure to air pollution (Rivas et al.,
8
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
2016).
The amount of pollution children breathe varies depending on how
they travel to and from school. We compared passive travelling (car/
bus) and active travelling, walking along back streets and walking along
main roads. Many previous studies have reported that air pollution
levels are characteristically higher on heavily congested roads, while
backstreets, with lower traffic flows, tend to display lower air pollution
levels (Thai et al., 2008; McNabola et al., 2008; Adams et al., 2001;
Zuurbier et al., 2010; Molter and Lindley, 2015). This study contributes
to this evidence, by showing that primary school children that commute
to and from school, along back streets, are exposed to lower levels of air
pollution (PM2.5) compared to children commuting along main roads.
The general consensus amongst several European studies is that
generally the greatest exposures are experienced by car riders and
lowest exposures by pedestrians (de Nazelle et al., 2017). Due to the low
number of car and bus journeys included in this study, we are unable to
draw any robust conclusions regarding the difference between passive
and active travel. However, our findings suggest that those children that
opted for walking through heavily-traffic roads can potentially be
exposed to higher levels of air pollution compared to children that were
driven or took the bus to school. Briggs et al. (2008) also suggested this,
showing that average exposures whilst walking can sometimes be
greater than in-car exposure, highlighting the importance of route se­
lection and how avoiding busy streets can potentially enable pedestrians
to reduce their air pollution exposure. Information about driving habits
(close window/open window) was not gathered during this study, but it
could certainly have an effect on exposure levels. For instance, it has
been reported that driving with windows closed with the car’s air con­
ditioning with air recirculating on in the cabin can result in lower
exposure rates (Chaney et al., 2017). Further research is needed to
further evaluate this.
The exposures measured in our study were at the lower end of other
school children exposure studies conducted in Europe and North
America. Recent PM2.5 exposures in Europe have ranged from 7.7 to
19.0 μg m− 3 (Donaire-Gonzalez et al., 2019, Cunha-Lopes et al., 2019)
and a slightly higher range of exposures recorded (9.6–24.1 μg m− 3) in
America and Canada (Spira-Cohen et al., 2010, Smargiassi et al., 2014;
Ducret-Stich et al., 2012; Van Ryswyk et al., 2014). The lower exposure
in our study could be due to the fact that we did not monitor in homes, so
we missed indoor sources of exposure and the relatively low background
ambient levels that were prevalent during our study. Our study expo­
sures were much lower than what has been recorded in China, which
ranged 59.7–122.4 μg m− 3 (Zhang et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2020, Brehmer
et al., 2020), most likely due to substantial PM2.5 sources in China with
widespread use of coal for heating and electricity production contrib­
uting to both indoor and ambient pollution levels (Zhang et al., 2015).
This study was limited to characterising children’s exposure to air
pollution during the spring term, therefore it may not be generalizable to
other seasons. We were unable to differentiate between the data gath­
ered in the classrooms and in the playground, thus it was not possible to
identify the origin of PM2.5 spikes occurring during school hours. There
were additional challenges with processing the personal measurements,
which requires further refinement in future studies. For example, the
efficacy of the semiautomatic algorithm was affected by the choice of a
temporal resolution of 1 min, which reduced the amount of GPS infor­
mation available for the identification of commutes. This made it diffi­
cult to identify shorter changes in direction, speed and acceleration, and
ultimately the identification of individual segments of the commute, for
example when the children used multiple modes of transport during
their commutes. Additionally, shorter commutes, typically within 5 min
from the school, were challenging to identify due to the few data points
available.
While tackling air pollution at the source, through prevention and
reduction strategies, should be the main priority, everyone has a role to
play and changes at an individual level are needed to both reduce
peoples’ exposure and their own contribution to air pollution. One
D. Varaden et al.
strategy to reduce children daily PM2.5 exposure is to encourage changes
in the way children commute to and from school, shifting from passive
mode of transportation such as car and bus, towards active commuting
(walking, cycling and scooting). Opting for active modes of commuting
can improve the local air and noise pollution, in addition to increasing
exercise taking, supporting the fight against child obesity among school
children (Frank et al., 2004; de Nazelle et al., 2011). Physical activity in
children, has also been reported to be positively related to their aca­
demic performance (Singh et al., 2012). This study identified that with
the right approach and guidance, children can be powerful contributors
to the scientific enquiry. Raising children’s awareness to air pollution
and actively involving them in research activities can lead to positive
changes in behaviour. Furthermore, children have shown to be excellent
disseminators of information, sharing with their parents what they
learnt at school and encouraging behavioural changes in their parents (i.
e. driving less to school).
5. Conclusions
Our study identified that, with suitable technical support, portable
air pollution technology offers the potential for school children to carry
out their own air pollution monitoring projects, taking an active part in
the research enquiry, making air pollution monitoring possible at many
more locations, improving air pollution and exposure assessments. This
in turn can improve our ability to better understand air pollution and to
develop effective air pollution prevention strategies. We showed that a
participatory “citizen science” approach to data collection can not only
support participant’s engagement and adherence to the study protocols,
but also has the potential for raising awareness and encouraging positive
behavioural changes to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants and
contribution to the problem.
Understanding where and when children are exposed to higher levels
of PM2.5 will allow to focus resources in these areas. The higher exposure
levels registered in our study were from children commuting to and from
school, particularly during the morning rush hour. Our data suggest that
active commuting (walking,cycling and scooting) along back streets
compared with active commuting along main roads, results in signifi­
cantly lower PM2.5 exposure levels.
Future research should evaluate the extent to which children are
exposed to air pollution while at home, as well as the parents’ and
children’s behaviours associated with higher exposure episodes.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Greater London Authority. Many
thanks to all our young “air quality scientists”, their parents and teachers
for taking part in this project.
Monitoring backpacks were designed and provided on loan free of
charge by Dyson Ltd, following a competitive selection process. We are
grateful to Dyson for their voluntary involvement in the educational
programme. Dr Diana Varaden and Dr Benjamin Barratt are part funded
by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection
Research Unit in Environmental Exposures and Health, a partnership
between Public Health England and Imperial College London. The views
expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the
NIHR, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social
Care.
9
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111536.
References
Adams, H.S., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Colvile, R.N., 2001. Determinants of fine particle
(PM2.5) personal exposure levels in transport microenvironments. London, UK
Atmos. Environ. 35, 4557–4566. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-9697(01)00723-9.
Barratt, B., Lim, S., 2019. Breathe London Wearable Sensor Evaluation - Dyson. Report.
King’s College London. http://erg.ic.ac.uk/research/docs/Uploads_to_exposure_scie
nce_website/IntercompEvaluationReport_Dyson.pdf.
Beaumont, R., Hamilton, R., Machin, N., Perks, J., Williams, I., 1999. Social awareness of
air quality information. Sci. Total Environ. 235, 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0048-9697(99)00215-6.
Bonney, R. B. Heidi, Jordan, Rebecca, Mccallie, Ellen, Phillips, Tina, Shirk, Jennifer,
Wilderman, Candie C., 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the
Field and Assessing its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry
Group Report, Washington, DC.
Branco, P.T.B.S., Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M., Martins, F.G., Sousa, S.I.V., 2014. The
microenvironmental modelling approach to assess children’s exposure to air
pollution – a review. Environ. Res. 135, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2014.10.002.
Briggs, D.J., de Hoogh, K., Morris, C., Gulliver, J., 2008. Effects of travel mode on
exposures to particulate air pollution. Environ. Int. 34, 12–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2007.06.011.
Brehmer, C., et al., 2020. The impact of household air cleaners on the oxidative potential
of PM2.5 and the role of metals and sources associated with indoor and outdoor
exposure. Environ. Res. 181, 108919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2019.108919.
Brugge, D., Durant, J.L., Rioux, C., 2007. Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle
exhaust: a review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks.
Environ. Health 6, 23.
Bulot, F., Russell, H., Rezaei, M., Johnson, M., Ossont, S., Morris, A., Basford, P.,
Easton, N., Foster, G., Loxham, M., Cox, S., 2020. Laboratory comparison of low-cost
particulate matter sensors to measure transient events of pollution. Sensors 20, 2219.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082219.
Buonanno, G., Stabile, L., Morawska, L., Russi, A., 2013. Children exposure assessment to
ultrafine particles and black carbon: the role of transport and cooking activities.
Atmos. Environ. 79, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.041.
Bush, J., Moffatt, S., Dunn, C., 2001. Keeping the public informed? Public negotiation of
air quality information. Publ. Understand. Sci. 10 (2), 213–229. https://doi.org/
10.3109/a036866.
Carslaw, D., 2019. Worldmet: Import Surface Meteorological Data from NOAA Integrated
Surface Database (ISD). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=worldmet.
Chaney, R.A., Sloan, C.D., Cooper, V.C., Robinson, D.R., Hendrickson, N.R., Mccord, T.
A., Johnston, J.D., 2017. Personal exposure to fine particulate air pollution while
commuting: an examination of six transport modes on an urban arterial roadway.
PLoS One 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188053 e0188053-e0188053.
Chen, Z., Salam, M.T., Eckel, S.P., Breton, C.V., Gilliland, F.D., 2015. Chronic effects of
air pollution on respiratory health in Southern California children: findings from the
Southern California Children’s Health Study. J. Thorac. Dis. 7, 46–58. https://doi.
org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.12.20.
Clifford A, L.L., Chen, R., Anstey, K.J., Seaton, A., 2016. Exposure to air pollution and
cognitive functioning across the life course–A systematic literature review. Environ.
Res. 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.01.018.
Commodore, A, et al., 2017. Community-based participatory research for the study of air
pollution: a review of motivations, approaches, and outcomes. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 189 (8) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6063-7.
Corburn, Jason, 2005. Street Science Community Knowledge and Environmental Health
Justice. Massachusetts Institute of Techonology.
Cunha-Lopes, I., et al., 2019. Children’s exposure to sized-fractioned particulate matter
and black carbon in an urban environment. Build. Environ. 155, 187–194. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.045.
de Nazelle, A., Bode, O., Orjuela, J.P., 2017. Comparison of air pollution exposures in
active vs. passive travel modes in European cities: a quantitative review. Environ.
Int. 99, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.023.
de Nazelle, A., et al., 2011. Improving health through policies that promote active travel:
a review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environ. Int.
37, 766–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.02.003.
DEFRA, 2019. Site information for London honor Oak park(UKA00656). UK AIR Air
Information Resource.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 2014. New home to school travel and transport
guidance [Online]. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government
/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295189/Home_to_School_Transport
_Consultation_Document.pdf.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, 2012. Statutory Guidance. Guidance on Road
Classification and the Primary Route Network [Online]. Available: https://www.go
v.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-
route-network/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network.
Donaire-Gonzalez, D., et al., 2019. Personal assessment of the external exposome during
pregnancy and childhood in Europe. Environ. Res. 174, 95–104. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envres.2019.04.015.
D. Varaden et al.
Ducret-Stich, R.E., et al., 2012. Examining the representativeness of home outdoor PM
(2.5), EC, and OC estimates for daily personal exposures in Southern California. Air
Qual. Atmos. Health 5 (3), 335–351, 10.1007%2Fs11869-010-0099-y.
Feng, X., Wang, S., 2012. Influence of different weather events on concentrations of
particulate matter with different sizes in Lanzhou, China. J. Environ. Sci. 24,
665–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(11)60807-3.
European Environmental Agency (EEA), 2019. Assessing Air Quality through Citizen
Science [Online]. Available:. EEA, Copenhagen https://www.eea.europa.eu/publica
tions/assessing-air-quality-through-citizen-science.
Fecht, D., et al., 2015. Associations between air pollution and socioeconomic
characteristics, ethnicity and age profile of neighbourhoods in England and The
Netherlands. Environ. Pollut. 198, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2014.12.014.
Frank, L.D., Andresen, M.A., Schmid, T.L., 2004. Obesity relationships with community
design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am. J. Prev. Med. 27, 87–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.04.011.
Gabrys, J.P.H., Benjamin, Barratt, 2016. Just good enough data: figuring data
citizenships through air pollution sensing and data stories. Big Data Soc. 3 https://
doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679677.
Gauderman, W. V. Hita, Mcconnell, R.O.B., Berhane, K.I.R.O.S., Gilliland, F.R.A.N.K.,
Thomas, Duncan, Lurmann, F.R.E.D., Avol, E.D., Künzli, N.I.N.O., Jerrett, Michael,
Peters, J.O.H.N., 2007. Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to
18 Years of age: a cohort study. Lancet 369, 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(07)60037-3.
Gehring, U., Gruzieva, O., Agius, R.M., Beelen, R., Custovic, A., Cyrys, J., Eeftens, M.,
Flexeder, C., Fuertes, E., Heinrich, J., Hoffmann, B., de Jongste, J.C., Kerkhof, M.,
Klumper, C., Korek, M., Molter, A., Schultz, E.S., Simpson, A., Sugiri, D.,
Svartengren, M., von Berg, A., Wijga, A.H., Pershagen, G., Brunekreef, B., 2013. Air
pollution exposure and lung function in children: the ESCAPE project.(Research/
Children’s Health). Environ. Health Perspect. 121, 1357. https://doi.org/10.1289/
ehp.1306770.
Gilliland, J., Maltby, M., Xu, X., Luginaah, I., Loebach, J., Shah, T., 2019. Is active travel
a breath of fresh air? Examining children’s exposure to air pollution during the
school commute. Spat. Spatio-Tempor. Epidemiol. 29, 51–57. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sste.2019.02.004.
GOOGLE MAPS. 2019.
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY, 2018. The Mayor’s School Air Quality
AuditProgramme Programme Report.
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY, 2019. PM2.5 in London. Roadmap to meeting World
Health Organization guidelines, 2030.
Harrison, R.M., Laxen, D., Moorcroft, S., Laxen, K., 2012. Processes affecting
concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the UK atmosphere. Atmos.
Environ. 46, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.10.028.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ALLIANCE, 2019. Healthier Air, Healthier Children. 50
Schools across the EU Monitor Air Quality. Brussels: HEAL Report.
Holgate, S., Grigg, J., Agius, R., Ashton, J.R., Cullinan, P., Exley, K., Fishwick, D.,
Fuller, G., Gokani, N., Griffiths, C., 2016. Every Breath We Take: the Lifelong Impact
of Air Pollution, Report of a Working Party. Royal College of Physicians.
Jenkins, L., 2011. Using citizen science beyond teaching science content: a strategy for
making science relevant to students’ lives. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 6, 501–508. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9304-4.
Jeong, H., Park, D., 2017. Characteristics of elementary school children’s daily exposure
to black carbon (BC) in Korea. Atmos. Environ. 154, 179–188. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.045.
Khan, M.A.H., Rao, M.V., Li, Q., 2019. Recent advances in electrochemical sensors for
detecting toxic gases: NO2, SO2 and H2S. Sensors 19, 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s19040905.
Kim, J.J., 2004. Ambient air pollution: health hazards to children. Pediatrics 114,
1699–1707. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2166.
Kondo, Michelle, et al., 2014. Toward Participatory Air Pollution Exposure Assessment in
a Goods Movement Community. Prog Community Health Partnersh 8 (3). https://
doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014.0047.
Laumbach, R., Meng, Q., Kipen, H., 2015. What can individuals do to reduce personal
health risks from air pollution? J. Thorac. Dis. 7, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.
issn.2072-1439.2014.12.21.
Liu, J., Lewis, G., 2014. Environmental toxicity and poor cognitive outcomes in children
and adults. J. Environ. Health 76, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.11648/J.
Cmr.20140305.13.
Liu, M., et al., 2020. Personal exposure to fine particulate matter and renal function in
children: a panel study. Environ. Pollut. 266, 115129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115129.
Makuch, K., Aczel, M., 2018. Children and citizen science. In: Hecker, S., Haklay, M.,
Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., Bonn, A. (Eds.), Citizen Science - Innovation in
Open Science, Society and Policy. UCL Press, London, pp. 391–409.
Mcnabola, A., Broderick, B.M., Gill, L.W., 2008. Relative exposure to fine particulate
matter and VOCs between transport microenvironments in Dublin: personal
exposure and uptake. Atmos. Environ. 42, 6496–6512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2008.04.015.
Miles, M.B.A., 2020. Qualitative Data Analysis : a Methods Sourcebook.
Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., Bonney, R., 2012. The history of public participation in
ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1890/
110278.
Minkler, Meredith, 2010. Linking Science and Policy Through Community-Based
Participatory Research to Study and Address Health Disparities. Am. J. Public Health
100 (S1). https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.165720.
10
Environmental Research 201 (2021) 111536
Molter, A., Lindley, S., 2015. Influence of walking route choice on primary school
children’s exposure to air pollution–A proof of concept study using simulation. Sci.
Total Environ. 530–531, 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2015.05.118.
Mudway, I.S., Dundas, I., Wood, H.E., Marlin, N., Jamaludin, J.B., Bremner, S.A.,
Cross, L., Grieve, A., Nanzer, A., Barratt, B.M., Beevers, S., Dajnak, D., Fuller, G.W.,
Font, A., Colligan, G., Sheikh, A., Walton, R., Grigg, J., Kelly, F.J., Lee, T.H.,
Griffiths, C.J., 2019. Impact of London’s low emission zone on air quality and
children’s respiratory health: a sequential annual cross-sectional study. Lancet Pub.
Health 4, e28–e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30202-0.
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Rivas, I., de Castro, M., Cirach, M.,
Hoek, G., Seto, E., Jerrett, M., Sunyer, J., 2015. Variability in and agreement
between modeled and personal continuously measured black carbon levels using
novel smartphone and sensor technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es505362x.
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND, 2018. Health Matters: Air Pollution.
R CORE TEAM, 2019. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In:
COMPUTING, R.F.F.S. (Ed.) (Vienna, Austria).
Rivas, I., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Bouso, L., Esnaola, M., Pandolfi, M., de Castro, M.,
Viana, M., Àlvarez-Pedrerol, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Alastuey, A., Sunyer, J.,
Querol, X., 2016. Spatiotemporally resolved black carbon concentration,
schoolchildren’s exposure and dose in Barcelona. Indoor Air 26, 391–402. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ina.12214.
Sensrion AG Switzerland, 2021 [Online]. Available: https://www.sensirion.com/en/.
Singh, A., Uijtdewilligen, L., Twisk, J.W.R., van Mechelen, W., Chinapaw, M.J.M., 2012.
Physical activity and performance at school: a systematic review of the literature
including a methodological quality assessment. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 166,
49–55.
Skov, T., Cordtz, T., Jensen, Lilli Kirkeskov., et al., 1991. Modifications of health
behaviour in response to air pollution notifications in Copenhagen. Soc. Sci. Med. 33
(5), 621–-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(91)90220-7.
Smargiassi, A., et al., 2014. Associations between personal exposure to air pollutants and
lung function tests and cardiovascular indices among children with asthma living
near an industrial complex and petroleum refineries. Environ. Res. 132, 38–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.03.030.
Snik, F, et al., 2014. Mapping atmospheric aerosols with a citizen science network of
smartphone spectropolarimeters. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41 (20), 7351–7358. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061462.
Snyder, E.G., Watkins, T.H., Solomon, P.A., Thoma, E.D., Williams, R.W., Hagler, G.S.W.,
Shelow, D., Hindin, D.A., Kilaru, V.J., Preuss, P.W., 2013. The changing paradigm of
air pollution monitoring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11369–11377. https://doi.org/
10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.716.
Spira-Cohen, A., et al., 2010. Personal exposures to traffic-related particle pollution
among children with asthma in the South Bronx, NY. J. Expo. Sci. Environ.
Epidemiol. 20 (5), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2009.34.
Steinle, S., Reis, S., Sabel, C.E., 2013. Quantifying human exposure to air
pollution—moving from static monitoring to spatio-temporally resolved personal
exposure assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 443, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2012.10.098.
Suglia, S.F., Gryparis, A., Wright, R., Schwartz, J., Wright, R., 2008. Association of black
carbon with cognition among children in a prospective birth cohort study. Am. J.
Epidemiol. 167, 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm308.
Sunyer, J., Esnaola, M., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Forns, J., Rivas, I., López-Vicente, M.,
Suades-González, E., Foraster, M., Garcia-Esteban, R., Basagaña, X., Viana, M.,
Cirach, M., Moreno, T., Alastuey, A., Sebastian-Galles, N., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.,
Querol, X., 2015. Association between traffic-related air pollution in schools and
cognitive development in primary school children: a prospective cohort study.
e1001792 PLoS Med. 12, e1001792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pmed.1001792.
Thai, A., Mckendry, I., Brauer, M., 2008. Particulate matter exposure along designated
bicycle routes in Vancouver, British Columbia. Sci. Total Environ. 405, 26–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.035.
Van Ryswyk, K., Wheeler, A., Wallace, L., et al., 2014. Impact of microenvironments and
personal activities on personal PM2.5 exposures among asthmatic children. J. Expo.
Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 24 (3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2013.20.
Varaden, D., King, H., Rushton, E., Barratt, B., 2021. Engaging primary students with the
issue of air pollution through citizen science: lessons to be learnt. J. Emerg. Sci. (21),
30–36.
Varaden, D., Mckevitt, C., Barratt, B., 2018. Making the invisible visible: engaging school
children in monitoring air pollution in London. Research 2 (22), 267–288. https://
doi.org/10.18546/RFA.02.2.06.
Wildschut, D., 2017. The need for citizen science in the transition to a sustainable peer-
to-peer-society. Futures 91, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.010.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION, 2018. Air Pollution and Child Health- Prescribing
Clean Air.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2005. Health effects of transport-related air
pollution. In: Michal Krzyzanowski, B.K.-D.A.J.S. (Ed.) (Copenhagen, Denmark).
Zhang, N., et al., 2015. Characterization, health risk of heavy metals, and source
apportionment of atmospheric PM2.5 to children in summer and winter: an exposure
panel study in Tianjin, China. Air Quality Atmos. Health 8 (4), 347–357. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11869-014-0289-0.
Zuurbier, M., Hoek, G., Oldenwening, M., Lenters, V., Meliefste, K., van Den Hazel, P.,
Brunekreef, B., 2010. Commuters’ exposure to particulate matter air pollution is
affected by mode of transport, fuel type, and route. Environ. Health Perspect. 118,
783–789. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901622.