If most of our time is spent indoors, then the next place of significance is our commutes. Many people rely on the public transport system and it may be convenient and ecological. We know the air at these high-traffic urban areas probably is not the best, but how bad is the air pollution and how bad it is for your health?
Studies on Air Pollution at Train Stations
Metro systems play a crucial role in public transportation worldwide. Given that metro stations are unique built environments with a significant volume of daily commuters, ensuring a satisfactory air quality in these spaces becomes paramount.
Small particulates
The general air quality in an urban background already has a particulate matter, but on top of that you have all these extra emissions coming from trains stations. These include particles that come from the carriage moving along the rails, the brake blocks rubbing on the wheels, and the electrical connection between the collector plate and the live rail.
The London Underground, for example, sees up to five million passengers hopping on and off its network. Its 11 lines serve 272 stations, and at peak times there can be over 500 trains hurtling around beneath the streets of London.
All of our fellow passengers, human and otherwise, also contribute to the dust. Hair and skin cells, plastic fibres from clothing, and animal particulates.
Some particles are large enough to be caught by the hairs in our nose and throat, stopping them from getting into our lungs and causing damage there. These are typically referred to as PM10; particulate matter that is under 10 micrometres in diameter, or roughly 0.01mm.
Underground Air Is Worse than Ground-Level
Several studies have reported that particulate matter in underground metro stations were higher than those reported at street-level. In a study of three European metro systems (Barcelona, Athens and Oporto), PM2.5 concentrations in commuter platforms were higher than that in the urban ambient environment (Martins et al., 2016a).
Mean PM2.5 concentrations in underground metro stations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, were found to be higher than those at street-level (Shakya et al., 2020).
In Nanjing, China, particle concentrations in underground station concourses were typically higher than those in ambient air (Ji et al., 2021). In Prague, particulate matter concentration levels in the underground metro peaked during rush hour and were found to be highly enriched with iron and other metallic elements during train operating hours (Cusack et al., 2015).
Exposure to Bad Air at Train Stations vs in Cars
While the car isn’t worse than the tube in the case of PM2.5, it is much worse for other pollutants like nitrous oxides.”
It also depends on the design of the train station.
In Singapore, measures such as opting for full-height doors at the platform help maintain air quality on trains and in stations. One study found that PM2.5 levels in the majority of stations exceeded WHO 24-h guideline values.
The PM2.5 & PM10 levels were negatively associated with depth of platforms; the lower the train platforms were underground, the PM2.5, PM10, CO and CO2.
(Being in public areas expose you to other forms of pollution too, such as quats heavily found in almost all typical cleaning supplies. Tube trains and stations are cleaned with hospital-grade cleaning substances that are graded “anti-bacterial”. But this is another article.)
Studies on Indoor Air Quality and Sick-Building Syndrome at Metro Stations
One study looked at the Copenhagen Metro. Ventilation via doors during platform stops caused a drop in observed PM (and CO2) at stations, but the system is surprisingly polluted despite its recent construction.
CO2 mixing ratios ranged from ambient to around 600 ppm. Measures should be taken to control PM levels using a combination of source control and increased clean air supply of the Copenhagen and other similar metro systems.
More Pollution in Low-Humidity Winters
Metro station in Tianjin, China: With a lower relative humidity in winter, the coefficient of friction between railway wheels and rails increased, thus increasing particle emission. The carcinogenic risk of Cr on the platform was unacceptable. Moreover, the health risks induced by Ba should be investigated. The findings indicate that PM control at metro stationss, particularly on platforms in winter, should be emphasized.
Wide Range of Air Pollutants
Study from China, a review of 160 relevant studies performed across over 20 countries: These comprised more than 2000 individual measurement trips. Particulate matters, aromatic hydrocarbons, carbonyls and airborne bacteria have been identified as the primary air pollutants inside metro system:
Fe was found as the most dominant element in the metro PM. Mechanical wear at the brake–wheel and wheel–rail interfaces were commonly recognized as the primary PM source in the metro air.
As for the gaseous pollutants, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, styrene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone and acrolein were mostly found in the metro air. Service time of metro system, frequency of passing train, ventilation mode and airflow rate, the age and air-tightness of the metro train, interior materials, the number of passengers and the ambient pollution level outside the metro stations were identified as the key determinants that could play important roles of influencing the metro air quality.
The concentrations of aromatic VOCs in new metro carriage were 1-2 times lower than that in the old ones, as higher quality paint were used in new trains.
Less air circulation and ventilation inside underground carriage was likely the reason of higher VOCs levels than the above-ground track. To reduce the exposure levels of air pollutants, PSDs, air purifier unit, high-efficiency air filter seemed to be effective measures. Among these measures, PSDs have been frequently installed in the newly built metro platforms worldwide.
Metro PM showed genotoxicity and ability to induce inflammatory due to large magnetite component. According to the acceptable level proposed by the WorldHealth Organization (1×10−6–1×10−5), the life carcinogenic risk of commuters by subway was sometimes above the acceptable level.