PM2.5 Is Insufficient to Explain Personal PAH Exposure.

To understand how chemical exposure can impact health, researchers need tools that capture the complexities of personal chemical exposure. In practice, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality index (AQI) data from outdoor stationary monitors and Hazard Mapping System (HMS) smoke density data from satellites are often used as proxies for personal chemical exposure, but do not capture total chemical exposure. Silicone wristbands can quantify more individualized exposure data than stationary air monitors or smoke satellites. However, it is not understood how these proxy measurements compare to chemical data measured from wristbands. In this study, participants wore daily wristbands, carried a phone that recorded locations, and answered daily questionnaires for a 7‐day period in multiple seasons. We gathered publicly available daily PM2.5 AQI data and HMS data. We analyzed wristbands for 94 organic chemicals, including 53 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Wristband chemical detections and concentrations, behavioral variables (e.g., time spent indoors), and environmental conditions (e.g., PM2.5 AQI) significantly differed between seasons. Machine learning models were fit to predict personal chemical exposure using PM2.5 AQI only, HMS only, and a multivariate feature set including PM2.5 AQI, HMS, and other environmental and behavioral information. On average, the multivariate models increased predictive accuracy by approximately 70% compared to either the AQI model or the HMS model for all chemicals modeled. This study provides evidence that PM2.5 AQI data alone or HMS data alone is insufficient to explain personal chemical exposures. Our results identify additional key predictors of personal chemical exposure. Plain Language Summary: Tools are needed to determine how chemical exposures may affect people's health. It is not understood how air quality data from stationary air monitors and smoke density data from satellites align with personal chemical exposure data from silicone wristbands; we present the first study to evaluate this. In this study, people wore wristbands, carried phones to track their locations, and answered questions for a week in different seasons. We also collected fine particulate matter data from outdoor monitors and satellites and tested the wristbands for 94 different chemicals. The results showed that the wristband data, along with other information like where people spent time and the air quality, varied between seasons. We used machine learning models to predict personal chemical exposure using only the data from monitors or satellites, and then using a mix of data from both, along with additional data about the environment and people's behaviors. Models that used a mix of data were much better at predicting exposure compared to using just one type of data. This study tells us that using fine particulate data from monitors or satellites is not enough to understand personal chemical exposure. Key Points: Explaining personal chemical exposures required more than fine particulate matter air quality index (AQI) or hazard mapping system dataModels with variables in addition to fine particulate matter AQI increased predictive accuracy of exposureHeavy wildfire smoke was measured during the study [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]