Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Climate
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim

Microenvironment particle measurements

in Thessaloniki, Greece
Ilias Vouitsis a, Pekka Taimisto b, Apostolos Kelessis c, Zissis Samaras a,
a
Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Administration Building, University Campus, PO Box 458,
GR-54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
b
National Institute for Health and Welfare THL, PO Box 95, FI-70701 Kuopio, Finland
c
Municipality of Thessaloniki, Department of Environment, Paparrigopoulou 7, GR-54630 Thessaloniki, Greece

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 May 2013
Revised 8 February 2014
Accepted 27 March 2014

Keywords:
Commuting mode
Trafc conditions
Exposure
Inhaled dose

a b s t r a c t
Monitoring of particulate concentrations in Thessaloniki, Greece,
was carried out during April 2011, to assess differences in commuters exposure to trafc related particulate pollution. Three routes
were monitored in the two directions while bicycling, driving car
and travelling by bus. The length of each route was about 8 km
and individual journey times ranged between 18 and 34 min. Car
trips were made with windows closed and with the ventilation system at moderate setting and with co-drivers window open. The
results indicate that mean inhalation doses while bicycling is
higher than those during travelling by bus (15% for PM, 55% for
black carbon and 40% for particle number) and by car (60% open
window 70% closed window for PM, 50% open window 78%
closed-window for black carbon and 54% open window 77%
closed window for PN). Individuals who change their travel mode
from car to bicycling and bus commuting in response to policies
aimed at encouraging a modal shift in travel behavior, are thus
likely to experience increased journey-time personal exposures
to trafc-related air pollution. Commuting by car with closed windows is the transport mode by which a person experiences the
least exposure to particulate pollution.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 996014; fax: +30 2310 996019.
E-mail address: zisis@auth.gr (Z. Samaras).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.03.009
2212-0955/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

609

1. Introduction
Exposure to air pollution in trafc has been related to both long- and short-term cardiovascular and
respiratory health effects in a number of studies (Katsouyanni et al., 2011; Bernstein, 2012; Hoek et al.,
2013; Chiu et al., 2013). Measurements from xed monitoring stations have been commonly used as
surrogates for personal exposure levels to represent community exposure to pollutants and they have
been the basis of air quality guidelines and policy. However, several studies revealed that these measurements signicantly underestimate or have little or no association with the exposure of population
sub groups, thus highlighting the need for direct personal exposure measurements (Loth and Ashmore,
1994; Vellopoulou and Ashmore, 1998; Adams et al., 2001 and Adams et al., 2009; Gulliver and Briggs,
2004; Lai et al., 2004; Peters et al., 2004; Riediker et al., 2004; Adar et al., 2007; McCreanor et al., 2007;
Zuurbier et al., 2010). Particulates which are recognized as the main pollutant of concern in terms of
human health are of specic interest and short-term exposure (e.g. while commuting) to peak particle
concentrations may be associated with adverse health effects (Katsouyanni et al., 1997; Brook et al.,
2011; Lim et al., 2012).
In the last decade, smaller devices for automatic monitoring of particulates at high temporal (i.e.
several minutes to 1 h) have become available. The new generation of monitors are light and portable
making them ideal for personal monitoring. Most of the studies looking at specic microenvironments
have been done in transport and comparisons have generally been made in levels of concentrations
between different transport modes (e.g. walking, in-car, bus etc.) and between transport modes and
xed-site ambient monitoring. Up to now, published studies report high levels of particle concentrations inside public means of transport (Chan et al., 2002; Kaur et al., 2005) and that pedestrians and
cyclists experience lower exposure concentrations than individuals inside vehicles (Kaur et al., 2007;
Int Panis et al., 2010; Knibbs and de Dear, 2010; Geiss et al., 2010; Wang and Gao, 2011; Knibbs et al.,
2011; Dons et al., 2012).
The ndings indicate that particulate pollution varies largely from street to street and from city to
city. There are numerous variables potentially affecting personal exposure in transit conditions, including personal/individual factors, mode of transport, trafc characteristics, fuel type, cabin ventilation,
meteorology as well as countrys socioeconomic conditions (developing countries are facing most serious air pollution problems from both industrialization and urbanization processes (Cao et al., 2012; Wu
et al., 2013a and Wu et al., 2013b), and thus the trafc microenvironment may be more complicated).
Thessaloniki is one of the most polluted cities in Europe (Kassomenos et al., 2011; Vlachokostas
et al., 2009; EEA, 2006), in part due to climate and geography, but also because of high trafc density.
Previous measurements (Vouitsis et al., 2008) indicate that main street average concentrations were
signicantly higher than those of citys nearby background which is not affected by trafc: 7.3  104
vs. 1.4  104 particles cm3 during working days and 6.1  104 vs 0.8  104 particles cm3 during
weekends. For an improved characterization of the situation, the current study was carried out aiming
at estimating exposure concentrations during commuting and the corresponding inhalation doses
during trip for PM1.0, PM2.5, black carbon (BC) and PN. The study was part of the EC funded research
project TRANSPHORM which aimed to improve the knowledge of transport related airborne particulate matter. To this aim, we conducted measurements at different locations representing street background. The main aims of the study were (1) to compare average particulate exposure/inhalation dose
in different transportation modes, (2) to evaluate the additional exposure/inhalation dose (as compared to ambient levels) experienced while commuting, and (3) to provide information for planning
and policing applications. It is the rst time that kind of data are available for Thessaloniki and will
be very useful for probabilistic exposure estimates based on individual activity data, including the
population while in trafc or in other activities besides home and work.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study design
A seven-day long monitoring campaign was performed in Thessaloniki from April 05 to April 13,
2011. Three commute routes using three modes of travel (bicycle (BL), bus (B) and car (C)) were

610

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Fig. 1. Map of study area, showing commuting routes.

monitored. Route choice is an important determinant of exposure (McCreanor et al., 2007; Hertel
et al., 2008) and these routes represented examples of typical commuting routes for travel within
Thessaloniki (center suburbs), with a variety of conditions including high and low trafc roads
and street canyons (Fig. 1). Route 1 (followed 3 days) connects the center of Thessaloniki to Kalamaria
to the south and includes two major roads of the city Vasilisis Olgas and Tsimiski; route 2 (2 days)
leads from the centre to Eleftherio-Kordelio, northwest direction, and includes one major road (Egnatia) and a road affected by the industrial area (Monastiriou) (ViPaThe, 2013); route 3 (2 days) runs
from the centre to Thermi, southeast, and includes two major roads (Karamanli and A Papanastasiou)
as well as areas with low trafc and not so much affected by pollution. Because our interest was to
assess the impact of transportation mode choice on exposures, each monitored route consisted of
the full trip from origin to destination. Although sampling times were distributed across 4 periods
(07:30 10:00 am, 10:00:00 12:00 am, 13:00 15:00 pm, and 15:00 17:00 pm) consisting of peak
trafc periods, the number of samples does not allow differentiating in any statistical signicant level
and we present our results averaged all over the measurements. Table 1 gives the details of the measurement campaign. For the bicycle and bus mode, the equipment was placed in an appropriate bag to
be carried by the commuter. All car trips were made in the same car (Ford Focus Wagon with 1.6 L
gasoline engine, model 20082010, representing middle-sized <3 years old cars) in two conguration.
The rst conguration used in car measurements was with all windows closed (Cwc), with the cabin
ventilation on the second level and with the cabin air re-circulation turned off. The second studied
conguration (Cwo) was with co-drivers window fully open and the with cabin ventilation turned
off. The devices used in the study have important advantages in terms of their transportability and
short averaging times. Limitations of the instruments nevertheless need to be recognized. One source
of error is likely to be biases in the exposure estimates due to incomplete capture of the particle size
range (Zhu et al., 2005). The P-Trak device, for example, does not sample particles less than 20 nm in
aerodynamic diameter. Systematic underestimation of the ultrane and very ne components is
therefore probable.

611

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Table 1
Measurement campaign details (Bicycle (BL), Bus (B), Car (C), w/o = window open, w/c = window closed).
Date

Mode

Route

Start
time

End
time

Total time
(min)

Date

Mode

Route

Start
time

End
time

Total time
(min)

05/04/11 BL
1
08:38 09:06 28
06/04/11 C (w/c) 2
07:38 07:59 21
05/04/11 BL
1 (back) 09:22 09:52 30
06/04/11 C (w/c) 2 (back) 08:03 08:18 15
05/04/11 BL
1
10:07 10:34 27
06/04/11 C (w/o) 2
08:23 08:46 23
05/04/11 BL
1 (back) 10:51 11:20 29
06/04/11 C (w/o) 2 (back) 08:50 09:07 17
05/04/11 B
1
08:38 09:21 43
06/04/11 C (w/o) 2
13:05 13:29 24
05/04/11 B
1 (back) 09:22 10:02 40
06/04/11 C (w/o) 2 (back) 13:37 13:55 18
05/04/11 B
1
10:07 10:35 42
06/04/11 C (w/c) 2
14:05 14:29 24
05/04/11 B
1 (back) 10:51 11:26 37
06/04/11 C (w/c) 2 (back) 14:30 14:51 21
05/04/11 C (w/o) 1
08:42 09:11 29
07/04/11 BL
3
08:15 08:43 28
05/04/11 C (w/c) 1 (back) 09:29 09:53 24
07/04/11 BL
3 (back) 08:58 09:27 29
05/04/11 C (w/o) 1
09:55 10:23 28
07/04/11 BL
3
09:44 10:15 30
05/04/11 C (w/c) 1 (back) 10:34 11:00 26
07/04/11 BL
3 (back) 10:25 15:56 32
05/04/11 C (w/o) 1
15:25 15:52 27
07/04/11 B (+)
3
08:15 08:49 34
05/04/11 C (w/c) 1 (back) 15:54 16:16 22
07/04/11 B (++)
3 (back) 08:58 09:30 32
05/04/11 C (w/o) 1
16:23 16:49 26
07/04/11 B (+)
3
09:44 10:19 35
05/04/11 C (w/c) 1 (back) 16:55 17:17 22
07/04/11 B (++)
3 (back) 10:25 10:58 33
06/04/11 BL
2
07:41 08:06 25
07/04/11 C (w/c) 3
08:09 8:32
23
06/04/11 BL
2 (back) 08:28 08:56 28
07/04/11 C (w/c) 3 (back) 08:35 9:05
30
06/04/11 BL
2
09:16 09:43 27
07/04/11 C (w/o) 3
09:15 9:3
24
06/04/11 BL
2 (back) 10:03 10:30 27
07/04/11 C (w/o) 3 (back) 9:41
10:07 26
06/04/11 B ()
2
07:41 8:19
38
07/04/11 C (w/o) 3
13:28 13:54 26
06/04/11 B ()
2 (back) 08:28 9:07
39
07/04/11 C (w/o) 3 (back) 13:57 14:19 22
06/04/11 B ()
2
09:16 9:52
36
07/04/11 C (w/c) 3
14:45 15:13 28
06/04/11 B () 2 (back) 10:03 10:43 40
07/04/11 C (w/c) 3 (back) 15:15 15:39 24
() = 10 min intermediate stop, () = 8 min intermediate stop, () 6 min intermediate stop, (+) = 6 min intermediate
stop, (++) = 1 min intermediate stop.
Date

Mode

Route

Start
time

End
time

Total time
(min)

Date

Mode

Route

08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
08/04/11
11/04/11
11/04/11
11/04/11
11/04/11
11/04/11
11/04/11
11/04/11
11/04/11
() = 1 min
stop.

BL
1 (back) 09:05 09:32 30
11/04/11 C (w/o) 2 (back)
BL
1
09:37 10:00 25
11/04/11 C (w/o) 2
BL
1 (back) 10:07 10:32 25
11/04/11 C (w/o) 2 (back)
BL
1
10:33 10:57 27
11/04/11 C (w/o) 2
B
1 (back) 09:05 09:34 29
11/04/11 C (w/c) 2 (back)
B
1
09:37 10:07 30
11/04/11 C (w/c) 2
B
1 (back) 10:08 10:33 25
11/04/11 C (w/c) 2 (back)
B
1
10:34 11:02 28
11/04/11 C (w/c) 2
C (w/c)
1 (back) 09:05 9:21
16
12/04/11 BL
3 (back)
C (w/c)
1
09:21 9:49
28
12/04/11 BL
3
C (w/o) 1 (back) 09:50 10:14 24
12/04/11 BL
3 (back)
C (w/o) 1
10:15 10:42 27
12/04/11 BL
3
C (w/o) 1 (back) 14:26 14:49 23
12/04/11 C (w/o) 3 (back)
C (w/o) 1
14:50 15:14 24
12/04/11 C (w/o) 3
C (w/c)
1 (back) 15:40 15:58 18
12/04/11 C (w/o) 3 (back)
C (w/c)
1
15:58 16:20 22
12/04/11 C (w/o) 3
BL
2 (back) 10:58 11:25 27
12/04/11 C (w/c) 3 (back)
BL
2
11:30 11:58 28
12/04/11 C (w/c) 3
BL
2 (back) 12:06 12:29 23
12/04/11 C (w/c) 3 (back)
BL
2
12:30 12:55 25
12/04/11 C (w/c) 3
B ()
2 (back) 10:58 11:35 37
13/04/11 BL
1
B ()
2
11:40 12:15 35
13/04/11 BL
1 (back)
B ()
2 (back) 12:20 12:54 34
13/04/11 BL
1
B () 2
13:05 13:40 35
13/04/11 BL
1 (back)
intermediate stop, () = 7 min intermediate stop, () 8 min intermediate stop,

Start
time

End
time

Total time
(min)

11:02 11:20 18
11:27 11:52 25
12:06 12:25 19
12:27 12:50 23
16:05 16:34 29
16:35 16:54 21
17:01 17:24 23
16:27 17:43 15
12:19 12:51 32
12:57 13:27 30
14:05 14:34 29
14:40 12:11 31
11:05 11:30 25
11:34 12:00 26
12:23 12:45 22
12:48 13:09 21
15:57 16:16 19
16:18 16:37 19
16:39 16:58 19
17:01 17:19 18
10:29 10:53 24
11:07 11:28 21
11:44 12:07 23
12:12 12:35 23
() 3 min intermediate

612

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Date

Mode

Route

Start time

End time

Total time (min)

13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11
13/04/11

B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

10:29
11:07
11:44
12:12
10:27
10:48
11:05
11:56
15:14
15:33
16:03
16:22

11:06
11:28
12:09
12:32
10:47
11:04
11:30
12:15
15:33
15:54
16:21
16:41

37
21
25
20
20
16
25
19
19
21
18
19

(w/o)
(w/o)
(w/o)
(w/o)
(w/c)
(w/c)
(w/c)
(w/c)

(back)
(back)
(back)
(back)
(back)
(back)

2.2. Measurements
The measurements were conducted with a set of PM monitors, capable of measuring particle number concentration (PNC) as a proxy for ultrane particles, PM1.0, PM2.5, PM10 and BC while bicycling,
driving a car and riding a bus, along the 3 different routes leading from the city centre to the suburbs
and back. Further, noise was monitored for each commuting mode. Two transportation modes were
measured simultaneously (buscar and bikecar) and measurements with open and closed windows
were made in alternating car drives.
Concurrently with the personal measurements, PNC, PM2.5, PM10 and BC were monitored at a
xed street station. For this reason, the municipal measurement station located at Egnatia Street, a
location affected by heavy trafc nearly 24 h a day, was used. Table 2 depicts the equipment used
in the campaign. The complete measurement system with an aluminium carrying frame weighted
approximately 10 kg. During biking and bus rides, the equipment was placed in a soft case, which
could be carried as backpack. During bicycling the measurement bag was installed onto bicycles rack
and the PNC monitor was carried in a small backpack (to avoid interruptions in measurements due to
shaking). The noise monitor was carried in the backpacks pocket with microphone attached to left
shoulder of the bicyclist. For car measurements a hard plastic case without aluminium frame was
used. The measurement case was installed onto right back seat of the car. The noise monitor was carried in the drivers door pocket with microphone attached to safety belt on the left shoulder of driver.
In Cwc option, cabin ventilation was set on level 2 and re-circulation off.
At the xed site, 24-h lter samples were collected with built-in lter collection systems of pDR
(Table 2). Zeuor lters were used for PM sampling. Temperature and humidity xed site data were
collected from the existing monitoring networks. No wind speed measurements were taken but data
from the meteorological station of the city indicate gentle to moderate breeze condition during the
measurement campaign (average wind speed ranged from 1.96 to 5.24 m/s). To note that, although
meteorology parameters (along the mode of transport and trafc) have been identied as signicant
factors inuencing exposure concentrations to the different pollutants (Kaur et al., 2007; Knibbs et al.,
Table 2
Instrumentation used in the campaign.
Instrument

Measured quantity

Measurement
condition

Dust Trak DRX 8533 (TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN, USA) Laser photometer
Magee Scientic AE 51(Magee Scientic Corporation, Berkeley, CA, USA)
Aethalometer
P-Trak 8525 (TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN, USA) Ultrane particle counter
Larson Davis Spark 706 (PCB Piezotronics Inc., Depew, NY, USA) Noise
dosimeter
Escort Ilog EI-HSD32L (Elektron Technology plc, Cambridge, UK)

PM2.5 and PM1.0

BC

Commuting
Commuting

PN (0.02-1 lm)
Noise

Commuting
Commuting

Temperature and
humidity
PM2.5 (Zeuor lters)
PM10 (Zeuor lters)

Commuting

PM2.5 cyclone BGI GK2.05 and Buck Libra Plus pump at 4 l/min
DustTrak (ow rate 3 l/min)

Fixed site
Fixed site

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

613

2011), the close examination of this inuence is out of the scope of this study. In any case, the reader
shall be aware that during the warm period of the year (AprilSeptember), the occurrence of sea
breeze is favoured due to the weak synoptic forcing (Moussiopoulos et al., 2009). The formation of
sea breeze starts in the morning when local sea breeze cells develop, initially above the Thessaloniki
bay with directions perpendicular to the shore, resulting in an overall inhomogeneous wind pattern. In
the afternoon, an extended sea breeze originating from the Thermaikos gulf gradually develops, forming a rather homogeneous southern ow penetrating to the inland up to the northern boundary of the
GTA, resulting in the transport of air masses to the northeast. To note, however, that all measurements
presented here, were made in roughly similar conditions and were interested of differences between
modes, not actual precise concentrations or even sources of the particles.
Personal monitors were set to log in 1 s1 min concentrations depending on the downloading
speed and the memory capacity of the device. Duplicate sampling was conducted for a week to evaluate the performance of PM monitors; blank lters were also collected to evaluate the effect of lter
handling on PM results.
The average inhaled dose of air pollutants associated with each trip was calculated as a function of
average exposure concentration and travel time for each mode applying inhalation rates for bicycle,
car, and bus commuting mode derive by de Nazelle et al. (2012). Comparisons between the four travel
modes were made on the basis of descriptive statistics: mean, median and standard deviation (SD),
coefcient of variance (CoV) and bicycling:in-bus, bicycling:in-car and in bus:in car ratios for both
the mean and cumulative exposure and inhalation for each route (Briggs et al., 2008). Two ratio measures were computed for PM1.0, PM2.5, PM10 and BC. The ratio of the average (RA) and the average
ratio of the routes (ARR). RA represents the overall ratio of the mean exposure or inhalation dose
whilst commuting by mode j to the mean exposure or inhalation dose whilst commuting by mode k:

PN
F j;i
FRAj:k PNi1
F
i1 k;i

1a1e

where Fj,i and Fk,i are the measured exposure concentration (C) or calculated inhalation doses (ID)
(j = BL, B; k = B, Cwo, Cwc, i = 1,. . .,N where N is the number of routes). The ARR represents the geometric average of commuting by mode jmode k ratios across all routes:

FARRj:k

N
Y
F j;i
i1

!1=N
2a2e

F k;i

Correlation coefcients were also computed between different commuting exposures to each
pollutant.
Despite being a less frequently considered type of environmental pollution, noise has a major negative impact on the quality of life in cities (Klboe et al., 2000; Can et al., 2011; Ross et al., 2011).
Interestingly, the higher the road trafc noise levels people are exposed to, the more likely they are
to be annoyed by air pollution (for instance the smell of exhaust fumes) and vice versa (Klboe
et al., 2000), i.e. noise sensitizes them to olfactory insults. Others have assessed the relationships
between a number of factors such as land use, transport, noise, and air pollution at monitoring stations
(Murphy and King, 2010; Rahmani et al., 2011).
Leq (equivalent continuous sound level) is the preferred single value gure to describe sound pressure levels that vary over time and would produce the same sound energy over the stated period of
time T. A-weighting is applied to instrument-measured sound levels in effort to account for the relative loudness perceived by the human ear. LAeq is dened as equivalent continuous A-weighted sound
pressure level. As the measurements were performed with 1 s time resolution, the LAeq-levels of the
whole one way commuting trip were calculated using equation:

LAeq 10  log10

n
1X
100:1Li
n i1

!
3

where n is the total number of the 1-s measurements and L is the LAeq-value of each 1-s measurement.

614

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 2 and Table 3 summarize the exposure levels during commuting, as well as the xed station
measurements.
Route 1 was the most polluted route (with the exception of bus commuting where the exposure to
PM1.0, PM2.5, PM10 and PN was higher on route 2 and of commuting with car with opened window
where the exposure to PN and BC was again higher on route 2), while route 3 was the cleanest one. On
route 1, the higher exposure to PM1.0, PM2.5 and PM10 was during commuting by bus, followed by
bicycle and car with opened window. The lowest exposure to all PM components was during commuting by car with closed window. Exposure to PN on route 1 was higher during commuting by car with
opened window, followed by bus commuting and car with closed window. Exposure to BC was higher
during commuting by bicycle, followed by car with opened window, bus and car with closed window
which again showed the lowest exposure levels.
The situation was nearly the same on route 2. For PM components the highest exposure occurred
again during commuting by bus, followed by car with opened window in this case and then by bicycle.
Commuting by car with closed window was again the cleanest transport mode. In this route, exposure
to PN was slightly higher during commuting by car with opened window than during commuting by
bus, whereas again the lowest exposure was associated with car commuting with closed window.
Similar was the situation for BC.
In route 3, exposure to PM1.0 and PM2.5 was almost identical for bus and bicycle commuting, commuting by car with opened window followed while the lower exposure occurred again when commuting by car with closed window. Exposure to PM10 was slightly higher for bus commuting, followed by
bicycle, car with opened window and car with closed window. Bicycle commuting showed the highest
exposure to PN, followed by car with opened window, bus and car with closed window. Surprisingly,
commuting by car with closed window showed higher exposure to BC than bicycle commuting and
even higher than bus commuting. Commuting by car with opened window showed the highest exposure in this case. To note, however, that the levels of exposure on route 3 were signicantly lower
when compared to the levels of the other routes.
Measured pollutant concentrations during commuting appear to be different than the concentrations measured in xed street station, depending on the commuting mode and the route travelled.
Results are mixed during travelling on routes 1 and 2, while on route 3 pollution levels were found

Fig. 2. Average exposures to PM1.0, PM2.5, PM10, BC and PN in different modes of transport for the three routes.

Table 3
PM1.0. PM2.5, PM10, BC and PN concentrations during commuting by bicycle, bus and car (Bicycle (BL), Bus (B), Car (C), w/o = window open, w/c = window closed).
Mode

PM1.0 (lg/m3)

PM10 (lg/m3)

PNC (#/cm3)  104

BC (lg/m3)

Median

CoV

Mean SD

Median

CoV

Mean SD

Median

CoV

Mean SD

Median

CoV

Mean SD

Median

CoV

Route 1 (3 days)
BL
79 34
B
96 19
Cwo
69 23
Cwc
49 14

50
91
65
45

43
20
33
29

81 34
101 22
70 23
50 14

51
93
66
46

42
22
33
28

141 84
140 40
84 29
60 18

70
127
80
55

59
29
34
30

4.18 10.48
5.12 3.18
3.082 1.71

3.6075
4.2215
2.3625

25
62
55

10.5 6.7
7.4 3.1
9.0 4.8
4.2 2.8

6.8
6.8
7.0
4.0

64
42
53
67

Route 2 (2 days)
BL
44 3
B
98 23
Cwo
54 7
Cwc
26 5

35
80
47
23

7
24
13
19

45 3
105 26
55 7
26 5

36
85
48
23

7
25
13
19

57 5
212 61
74 3
31 08

45
171
63
27

9
29
4
20

6.43 0.67
6.67 1.83
2.25 0.29

6.1625
5.5725
1.8825

10
27
13

6.2 2.0
10.9 4.0
4.2 3.2

3.8
8.9
4.0

32
37
76

Route 3 (2 days)
BL
40 12
B
38 3
Cwo
32 3
Cwc
14 3

29
36
29
13

30
8
9
21

41 13
41 3
33 3
15 3

29
38
30
13

27
7
9
21

48 12
54 4
43 4
16 3

35
48
39
14

25
7
9
19

4.39
3.43
4.29 1.20
3.21

3.03
3.17

28

3.7
3.0
4.8
3.8

2.8
3.7
2.9

Fixed site
Route 1
Route 2
Route 3

78
41
62

20
13
24

85 18
45 6
67 16

79
41
63

21
13
24

91 21
47 6
69 17

65
43
63

33
13
25

4.72 1.36
4.42 0.95
4.29 0.60

4.05
3.76
3.74

29
22
14

8.2 1.7
6.0 1.5
3.6 0.6

6.7
5.1
3.1

82
85
86

83 17
45 6
66 16

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Mean SD

PM2.5 (lg/m3)

615

616

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

lower than street concentrations for almost all pollutants and all transport modes. More specically,
for route 1 measured pollutant levels during commuting were generally higher than that of street levels for PM10 and BC for bicycle commuting, for PM1.0, PM2.5 and PM10 for bus commuting and for PN
and BC for car with open window commuting; for route 2: PM10 for bicycle commuting and all pollutants for bus and car with opened window commuting; route 3: PN and BC for bicycle commuting
and BC for car (both opened and closed window commuting). Commuting by car with closed window
was generally found to be associated with lower exposure levels compared with the street background, with the exception of BC. In addition, as indicated by the differences between mean and median values, most exposure peaks are experienced during bicycling in all three routes and for all the
pollutants measured and to a lesser extent when commuting by bus and car with both opened and
closed window, on route 2 in particular. However, as shown by CoV values, bicycling measurements
were those with the highest degree of variation and shall be considered very carefully.
Table 4 gives Pearson correlations between average exposures during commuting for each pollutant. Strong linear correlations are seen in most cases suggesting signicant association.
Considering the inhaled dose of pollutants after accounting for trip duration and inhalation rates,
calculating inhaled pollutant dose are shown in Table 5. Patterns are generally similar to those of average exposures, but because of the higher inhalation rate associated with bicycling, the bicycling:in-car
ratios are larger. Compared to bus riders, cyclists inhaled 35% more PM1.0 and PM2.5, 62% more BC
and 56% more particles. Compared to car drivers and depending on the car window option, cyclists
inhaled 5090% more PM1 and PM2.5, 4884% more BC and 5572% more particles. Compared to
car drivers, bus riders inhaled 3885% more PM1.0 and PM2.5, 3781% more particles and 2060%
more BC (from car with closed window). Exception was route 2 where bus riders inhaled about 50%
more PM1.0 and PM2.5 than cyclists and car drivers with open window inhaled about 4% more BC
than bus riders. In the rst case, considering that the measurements conducted simultaneously, the
increased confounding inuence of other sources by the bus itself is minimal and self-pollution seems
probable (tailpipe and/or engine crankcase emissions).
Table 6 shows the ratio of averages (RA) as CRA for exposure and as IDRA for inhalation dose and
the average ratio of routes (AAR) as CARR for exposure and as IDARR for inhalation dose for PM1.0,
PM2.5 and PM10. CRA seems to increase with increasing particle size (from an average of 1.54 for
PM1.0 to 1.99 for PM10) and in bus:in car with closed windows ratio showed the largest value in most
cases. IDRAs were somewhat higher and showed the same pattern regarding particle size (from an
average of 2.93 for PM1.0 to 3.76 for PM10). In this case, however, the largest calculated ratio was that
of bicycling: in car with closed windows, obviously due to increased inhalation rate of bicyclists. CARR
showed almost the same pattern for particle size (from an average of 1.58 for PM1.0 to 1.93 for PM10).
Again, the largest calculated ratio was that of bicycling: in car with closed windows.
Although comparisons with other studies are difcult due to the wide variety of designs, including differences in the simultaneity of trips by various modes, the choice of routes by mode, the ventilation setting in cars, or the type of monitoring instruments used, as well as the particular setting
of the study site, it is clear that our results are in contrast with most of the studies which indicated
general tendencies of higher concentrations in cars than walking or biking (50% higher car concentrations for PM2.5 or PNC (Knibbs et al., 2011; Zuurbier et al., 2010; McNabola et al., 2008; Kaur
et al., 2005, 2007). Two exceptions include studies in the UK, with PM2.5 levels 40100% higher
walking than in a car (Briggs et al., 2008; Gulliver and Briggs, 2007). Also in Belgium, PM2.5 and

Table 4
Pearson correlations between average exposures during bicycling, in-bus and in-car travelling (Bicycle (BL), Bus (B), Car (C),
w/o = window open, w/c = window closed).

BLB
Cwo
Cwc
Cwo
Cwc

PM1.0

PM2.5

PNC

BC

0.557
0.901
0.739
0.862
0.971

0.512
0.886
0.711
0.853
0.969

0.992
0.996

0.918
0.838
0.914
0.554
0.681

617

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Table 5
Calculation of inhalation of pollutants by mode accounting for varying inhalation rate (IR), trip time, and mean concentration by
mode (Bicycle (BL), Bus (B), Car (C), w/o = window open, w/c = window closed).
IR (lpm)

Trip time
R1

PM1.0
BL
B
Cwo
Cwc
Fixed site
PM2.5
BL
B
Cwo
Cwc
Fixed Site
PM10
BL
B
Cwo
Cwc
Fixed Site
BC
BL
B
Cwo
Cwc
Fixed Site
PN
BL
B
Cwo
Cwo
Fixed Site
a

R2

R3

R1

R2

R3

R1

lg m3

min
26
28
24
21

27
37
22
22

30
34
25
23

41
20.1
19.9
19.9
4.6/4.0

26
28
24
21

27
37
22
22

30
34
25
23

41
20.1
19.9
19.9
4.6/4.0

26
28
24
21

27
37
22
22

30
34
25
23

41
20.1
19.9
19.9
4.6/4.0

26
28
24
21

27
37
22
22

30
34
25
23

41
20.1
19.9
19.9
4.6/4.0

26
28
24
21

27
37
22
22

30
34
25
23

41
20.1
19.9
19.9
4.6/4.0

Inhaled dosea (trip)

Mean concentration

79
96
69
49
83
lg m3
81
101
70
50
85
141
14
84
60

44
98
54
26
45

40
38
32
14
66

45
105
55
26
45

41
41
33
15
67

57
212
74
31

48
54
43
16

83.4
53.5
33.0
20.1

41824
51172
30732
47159

R3

49.2
72.6
23.4
11.3

49.0
26.2
15.9
6.4

85.5
56.3
33.4
20.5

50.3
77.8
23.8
11.3

50.2
28.2
16.4
6.8

149.3
78.2
40.2
24.5

63.2
157.2
32.1
13.5

58.6
36.9
21.2
7.3

4.6
4.7
1.8

4.5
2.1
2.4
1.7

4.8
2.9
0.9

5.4
2.4
2.1
1.5

lg

lg m3
10.5
7.4
9.0
4.2
8.2
# cm3

R2

lg

lg
6.2
10.9
4.2
6.0

3.7
3.0
4.08
3.08
3.6

#1010

2.4
2.4
1.3

43985
34314
42959
32139
42908

64272
66718
22487
44194

11.1
4.1
4.3
1.7

Inhaled dose (ID) is calculated as: ID = inhalation rate (IR)  concentration (C)  Duration of exposure.

Table 6
Ratio of averages for exposure (CRA) and inhalation dose (IDRA) and average ratio of routes for exposure (CARR) and inhalation
dose (IDARR).
PM1.0
BLB
BLCwc
BLCwo
BCwc
BCwo

BLB
BLCwc
BLCwo
BCwc
BCwo

PM2.5

PM10

BC

CRA
0.70
1.83
1.05
2.61
1.50

CAAR
0.73
1.98
1.05
2.72
1.44

CRA
0.68
1.84
1.06
2.71
1.56

CAAR
0.70
1.84
1.06
2.71
1.51

CRA
0.61
2.30
1.22
3.79
2.02

CAAR
0.62
2.34
1.13
3.76
1.82

CRA
1.37
1.78
1.03
1.36
0.67

CAAR
1.21
1.35
0.97
1.27
0.66

IDRA

IDAAR

IDRA

IDAAR

IDRA

IDAAR

IDRA

IDAAR

1.19
4.80
2.50
4.04
2.11

1.25
5.18
2.84
4.13
2.02

1.15
4.82
2.53
4.21
2.20

1.20
5.02
2.55
4.28
2.12

1.00
5.98
2.90
6.01
2.91

1.07
6.10
2.72
5.72
2.55

2.52
4.52
2.34
2.05
0.95

1.81
2.56
1.70
1.93
0.93

PM10 concentrations measured in cars in two of three cities were signicantly lower than concentration found while riding bikes in trips immediately following the car trip; differences in PNC were
not signicant in these same two cities and the reverse was true for both contaminants in the third

618

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Table 7
The median LAeq, LA95 and LA5 levels by commuting mode.
Commuting mode

Median LAeq (dB)

Median LA95 (dB)

Median LA5 (dB)

BL
B
C-wc
C-wo

74.9
73.2
70.7
72.1

61.7
63.7
54.2
55.2

80.3
77.9
74.6
77.5

city (Int Panis et al., 2010). Since it has been assumed that this may have occurred because the cars
had closed window and used air conditioning which reduces PM concentrations, in our study we
conducted measurements with both options. The fact that in most cases car driving was the commuting mode with the lower exposure/inhalation dose (in all cases when the window was closed
and with three exceptions in case of BC when the window was opened), indicates further the heavy
particulate background of the city.
Finally, Table 7 shows noise exposure in terms of median equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq),
LA95 (the level exceeded for 95% of the time) and LA5 (the level exceeded for 5% of the time). Car with
closed window was the quietest transportation mode. The median LAeq-levels in a car with open codrivers window were 1.4 dB higher than in a car with closed windows. It is notable that even when
the co-drivers window was open the car was less noisy than a bus. To note that WHOs guideline value
for serious annoyance during daytime and evenings in outdoor living area is 55 dB, which is exceeded
in all measured transportation modes. Vlachokostas et al. (2012) reported lower average noise levels
in Thessaloniki during walking (70.6 dB), biking (70.9 dB) and driving a car with open front windows
(66.3 dB). The routes measured by Vlachokostas et al. (2012) were designated to represent typical
paths of citizens through Thessaloniki metropolitan centre, and were characterized by high trafc
loads, slow speeds and frequent stops during rush hours.
4. Conclusions
This study attempted to assess personal exposure and inhalation dosing to particulate matter
(PM1.0, PM2.5, PM10, BC and particle number) during different modes of commuting (bicycle, bus
and car with all windows closed and with co-drivers window open) in three different routes in the
city of Thessaloniki. Although with a signicant amount of uncertainty, the results presented suggest
that exposure and inhalation doses are likely to be markedly higher for people bicycling in busy streets
compared to car drivers, at least under the driving conditions encountered here. This is in agreement
with Vlachokostas et al. (2014) who estimated fast cycling in the city center as hazardous on the and
recommend precaution. Although in reality bicyclists are usually traveling in cleaner areas, they must
be informed of the high exposure due to their increased physical activity. Unfortunately, this is not a
consequence of the commuting choice, but a consequence of others commuting behavior. Increased
exposure to particulates experienced by bus commuters also. Given that pollutant levels inside buses
can be greater than the ambient levels outside the bus as also indicated from several studies (i.e.,
Molle et al., 2013) due to either emissions from the bus itself that intrude into the bus cabin (age
and condition of the bus) or due to emissions from other vehicles (opened windows), the use of air
ltration or, better, the use of clean buses, such as electric buses or buses equipped with particulate
lters, will be therefore benecial not only for outdoor air quality but also for bus passengers. Moreover, the longer exposure duration for bus commuters further enlarge the exposure risks to particulate
pollution and should be taken into account. Commuting by car with open windows led to signicant
exposures to black carbon and particle numbers, while commuting by car with closed windows is the
transport mode over which the least exposure to air pollution was monitored. Thus, an occupant of a
relatively airtight automobile in which air is recirculated and ltered will likely experience markedly
lower exposure concentrations than a cyclist or a bus commuter on a high trafc route. In view of the
present situation in Thessaloniki and waiting for the implementation of the appropriate measures, car
commuting seems to be the most free of particulates mode as regards personal exposure and inhalation dose during commuting. Noise during commuting by all modes of travelling was found to be

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

619

considerably above recommended value for serious annoyance during daytime and evenings in outdoor living area. Although the time of study is not enough to provide guidance for transport policy
making, city authorities should be encouraged to increase the use of clean buses along with other
measures aiming at the reduction of trafc particle emissions (trafc reduction, bike and bus lanes,
different bus ventilation, particle lter for air conditioning).
Acknowledgement
This work was performed under TRANSPHORM project funded by the European Commission (Grant
agreement No.: 243406).
References
Adams, H.S., Niewenhuijsen, M.J., Colvile, R.N., McMullen, M.A.S., Khandelwal, P., 2001. Fine particle (PM2.5) personal exposure
levels in transport microenvironments, London, UK. Sci. Total Environ. 279, 2944.
Adams, H.S., Niewenhuijsen, M.J., Colvile, R.N., Older, M.J., Kendall, M., 2009. Assessment of road users elemental carbon
personal exposure levels, London, UK. Atmos. Environ. 36 (24), 53355342.
Adar, S.D., Gold, D.R., Coull, B.A., Schwartz, J., Stone, P.H., Suh, H., 2007. Focused exposures to airborne trafc particles and heart
rate variability in the elderly. Epidemiology 18, 95103.
Bernstein, D.I., 2012. Trafc-related pollutants and wheezing in children. J. Asthma 49, 57.
Briggs, D.J., de Hoogh, K., Morris, C., Gulliver, J., 2008. Effects of travel mode on exposures to particulate air pollution. Environ.
Int. 34, 1222.
Brook, R.D., Bard, R.L., Burnett, R.T., Shin, H.H., Vette, A., Croghan, C., Phillips, M., Rodes, C., Thornburg, J., Williams, R., 2011.
Differences in blood pressure and vascular responses associated with ambient ne particulate matter exposures measured
at the personal versus community level. Occup. Environ. Med. 68, 224230.
Can, A., Rademaker, M., Van Renterghem, T., Mishra, V., Van Poppel, M., Touha, A., Theunis, J., De Baets, B., Botteldooren, D.,
2011. Correlation analysis of noise and ultrane particle counts in a street canyon. Sci. Total Environ. 409 (3), 564572.
Cao, J.J., Hang, H., Lee, S.C., Chow, J.C., Zou, C.W., Ho, K.F., Watson, J.G., 2012. Indoor/outdoor relationships for organic and
elemental carbon in PM2.5 at residential homes in Guangzhou, China. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 12, 902910.
Chan, L.Y., Lau, W.L., Lee, S.C., Chan, C.Y., 2002. Commuter exposure to particulate matter in public transportation modes in
Hong Kong. Atmos. Environ. 36, 33633373.
Chiu, Y.-H.M., Bellinger, D.C., Coull, B.A., Anderson, S., Barber, R., Wright, R.O., Wright, R.J., 2013. Associations between trafcrelated black carbon exposure and attention in a prospective birth cohort of urban children. Environ. Health Perspect. 121
(7), 859864.
De Nazelle, A., Scott Fruin, S., Westerdahl, D., Martinez, D., Ripoll, A., Kubesch, N., Nieuwenhuijsen, 2012. A travel mode
comparison of commuters exposures to air pollutants in Barcelona. Atmos. Environ. 59, 151159.
Dons, E., Int Panis, L., Van Poppel, M., Theunis, J., Wets, G., 2012. Personal exposure to black carbon in transport
microenvironments. Atmos. Environ. 55, 392398.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2006. Air pollution at street level in European cities. EEA Technical report No. 1/2006.
Geiss, O., Barrero-Moreno, J., Tirendi, S., Kotzias, D., 2010. Exposure to particulate matter in vehicle cabins of private cars.
Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 10, 581588.
Gulliver, J., Briggs, D.J., 2004. Personal exposure to particulate air pollution in transport microenvironments. Atmos. Environ. 38,
18.
Gulliver, J., Briggs, D.J., 2007. Journey-time exposure to particulate air pollution. Atmos. Environ. 41, 71957207.
Hertel, O., Hvidberg, M., Ketzel, M., Storm, L., Stausgaard, L., 2008. A proper choice of route signicantly reduces air pollution
exposure e a study on bicycle and bus trips on urban streets. Sci. Total Environ. 389, 5870.
Hoek, G., Krishnan, R.M., Beelen, R., Peters, A., Ostro, B., Brunekreef, B., Kaufman, J.D., 2013. Long-term air pollution exposure and
cardio-respiratory mortality: a review. Environ. Health 12, 115.
Int Panis, L., de Geus, B., Vandenbulcke, G., Willems, H., Degraeuwe, B., Bleux, N., Mishra, V., Thomas, I., Meeusen, R., 2010.
Exposure to particulate matter in trafc: a comparison of cyclists and car passengers. Atmos. Environ. 44, 22632270.
Kassomenos, P.A., Kelessis, A., Paschalidou, A.K., Petrakakis, M., 2011. Identication of sources and processes affecting
particulate pollution in Thessaloniki, Greece. Atmos. Environ. 45 (39), 72937300.
Katsouyanni, K., Touloumi, G., Spix, C., 1997. Short term effects of ambient sulphur dioxide and particulate matter on mortality
in 12 European cities: results from time series data from the APHEA project. Br. Med. J. 314, 16581663.
Katsouyanni, K., Gryparis, A., Samoli, E., 2011. Short-Term Effects of Air Pollution on Health. Reference Module in Earth Systems
and Environmental Sciences, from Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, pp. 5160.
Kaur, S., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Colvile, R., 2005. Personal exposure of street canyon intersection users to PM2.5, ultrane particle
counts and carbon monoxide in Central London, UK. Atmos. Environ. 39, 36293641.
Kaur, S., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Colvile, R.N., 2007. Fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide exposure concentrations in
urban street transport microenvironments. Atmos. Environ. 41, 47814810.
Klboe, R., Kolbenstvedt, M., Clench-Aas, J., Bartonova, A., 2000. Oslo trafc study-part 1: an integrated approach to assess the
combined effects of noise and air pollution on annoyance. Atmos. Environ. 34 (27), 47274736.
Knibbs, L.D., de Dear, R.J., 2010. Exposure to ultrane particles and PM2.5 in four Sydney transport modes. Atmos. Environ. 44,
32243227.
Knibbs, L.D., Cole-Hunter, T., Morawska, L., 2011. A review of commuter exposure to ultrane particles and its health effects.
Atmos. Environ. 45, 26112622.

620

I. Vouitsis et al. / Urban Climate 10 (2014) 608620

Lai, H.K., Kendall, M., Ferrier, H., Lindup, I., Alm, S., Hnninen, O., Jantunen, M., Mathys, P., Colvile, R., Ashmore, M.R., Cullinan, P.,
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2004. Personal exposures and microenvironment concentrations of PM2.5, VOC, NO2 and CO in
Oxford, UK. Atmos. Environ. 38, 63996410.
Lim, S., Kim, J., Kim, T., Lee, K., Yang, W., Jun, S., Yu, S., 2012. Personal exposures to PM2.5 and their relationships with
microenvironmental concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 47, 407412.
Loth, K.W., Ashmore, M.R., 1994. Personal exposure to air pollution. Clean Air 24, 114122.
McCreanor, J., Cullinan, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Stewart-Evans, J., Malliarou, E., Jarup, L., Harrington, R., Svartengren, M., Han,
I.K., Ohman-Strickland, P., Chung, K.F., Zhang, J., 2007. Respiratory effects of exposure to diesel trafc in persons with
asthma. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 23482358.
McNabola, A., Broderick, B.M., Gill, L.W., 2008. Relative exposure to ne particulate matter and VOCs between transport
microenvironments in Dublin: personal exposure and uptake. Atmos. Environ. 42, 64966512.
Molle, R., Mazoue, S., Gehin, E., Ionescu, A., 2013. Indooroutdoor relationships of airborne particles and nitrogen dioxide inside
Parisian buses. Atmos. Environ. 69, 240248.
Moussiopoulos, N., Vlachokostas, Ch., Tsilingiridis, G., Douros, I., Hourdakis, E., Naneris, C., Sidiropoulos, C., 2009. Air quality
status in greater Thessaloniki area and the emission reductions needed for attaining the EU air quality legislation. Sci. Total
Environ. 407 (4), 12681285.
Murphy, E., King, E.A., 2010. Strategic environmental noise mapping: methodological issues concerning the implementation of
the EU Environmental Noise Directive and their policy implications. Environ. Int. 36 (3), 290988.
Peters, A., von Klot, S., Heier, M., Trentinaglia, I., Hormann, A., Wichmann, H.E., Hannelore, L., 2004. Exposure to trafc and the
onset of myocardial infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 17211730.
Rahmani, S., Mousavi, S.M., Kamali, M.J., 2011. Modeling of road-trafc noise with the use of genetic algorithm. Appl. Soft
Comput. 11 (1), 10081013.
Riediker, M., Cascio, W.E., Griggs, T.R., Herbst, M.C., Bromberg, P.A., Neas, L., Williams, R.W., Devlin, R.B., 2004. Particulate matter
exposure in cars is associated with cardiovascular effects in healthy young men. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 169, 934940.
Ross, Z., Kheirbk, I., Clougherty, J.E., Ito, K., Matte, T., Markowitz, S., Eisl, H., 2011. Noise, air pollutants and trafc: continuous
measurement and correlation at a high-trafc location in New York City. Environ. Res. 111, 10541063.
Vellopoulou, A.V., Ashmore, M.R., 1998. Personal exposures to carbon monoxide in the city of Athens. 1. Commuters exposures.
Environ. Int. 24, 713720.
ViPaThe, 2013. Industrial Park of Thessaloniki. Available at <http://www.vipathe.gr/en/parko_thesi.asp>.
Vlachokostas, Ch., Achillas, Ch., Moussiopoulos, N., Hourdakis, E., Tsilingiridis, G., Ntziachristos, L., Banias, G., Stavrakakis, N.,
Sidiropoulos, C., 2009. Decision support system for the evaluation of urban air pollution control options: application for
particulate pollution in Thessaloniki, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 407 (13), 59375948.
Vlachokostas, Ch., Achillas, Ch., Michailidou, A.V., Moussiopoulos, N., 2012. Measuring combined exposure to environmental
pressures in urban areas: an air quality and noise pollution assessment approach. Environ. Int. 39, 818.
Vlachokostas, C., Banias, G., Athanasiadis, A., Achillas, C., Akylas, V., Moussiopoulos, N., 2014. CENSE: a tool to assess combined
exposure to environmental health stressors in urban area. Environ. Int. 63, 110.
Vouitsis, I., Ntziachristos, L., Samaras, Z. Roadside and urban background measurements of ultrane particles in Thessaloniki,
European Aerosol Conference, Thessaloniki, 2429 August 2008.
Wang, X., Gao, H., 2011. Exposure to ne particle mass and number concentrations in urban transportation environments of
New York city. Transp. Res D 16, 13619209.
Wu, D.L., Lin, M., Chan, C.Y., Li, W.Z., Tao, J., Li, Y.P., Sang, X.F., Bu, C.W., 2013a. Inuences of commuting mode, air conditioning
mode and meteorological parameters on ne particle (PM2.5) exposure levels in trafc microenvironments. Aerosol Air
Qual. Res 13, 709720.
Wu, M., Wu, D., Fan, Q., Wang, B.M., Li, H.W., Fan, S.J., 2013b. Observational studies of the meteorological characteristics
associated with poor air quality over the Pearl River Delta in China. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 1075510766.
Zhu, Y.F., Hinds, W.C., Krudysz, M., Kuhn, T., Froines, J., Sioutas, C., 2005. Penetration of freeway ultrane particles into indoor
environments. J. Aerosol Sci. 36, 303322.
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.