Using low-cost portable air quality (AQ) monitoring devices is a growing trend in personal exposure studies, enabling a higher spatio-temporal resolution and identifying acute exposure to high concentrations. Comprehension of the results by participants is not guaranteed in exposure studies. However, information on personal exposure is multiplex, which calls for participant involvement in information design to maximise communication output and comprehension. This study describes and proposes a model of a user-centred design (UCD) approach for preparing a final report for participants involved in a multi-sensor personal exposure monitoring study performed in seven cities within the EU Horizon 2020 ICARUS project. Using a combination of human-centred design (HCD), human–information interaction (HII) and design thinking approaches, we iteratively included participants in the framing and design of the final report. User needs were mapped using a survey (n = 82), and feedback on the draft report was obtained from a focus group (n = 5). User requirements were assessed and validated using a post-campaign survey (n = 31). The UCD research was conducted amongst participants in Ljubljana, Slovenia, and the results report was distributed among the participating cities across Europe. The feedback made it clear that the final report was well-received and helped participants better understand the influence of individual behaviours on personal exposure to air pollution.

Use of a multi-sensor approach can provide citizens with holistic insights into the air quality of their immediate surroundings and their personal exposure to urban stressors. Our work, as part of the ICARUS H2020 project, which included over 600 participants from seven European cities, discusses the data fusion and harmonization of a diverse set of multi-sensor data streams to provide a comprehensive and understandable report for participants. Harmonizing the data streams identified issues with the sensor devices and protocols, such as non-uniform timestamps, data gaps, difficult data retrieval from commercial devices, and coarse activity data logging. Our process of data fusion and harmonization allowed us to automate visualizations and reports, and consequently provide each participant with a detailed individualized report. Results showed that a key solution was to streamline the code and speed up the process, which necessitated certain compromises in visualizing the data. A thought-out process of data fusion and harmonization of a diverse set of multi-sensor data streams considerably improved the quality and quantity of distilled data that a research participant received. Though automation considerably accelerated the production of the reports, manual and structured double checks are strongly recommended.

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is a rapidly developing field that is emphasized as an important approach for the assessment of health risks. However, its value for health risk assessment (HRA) remains to be clarified. We performed a review of publications concerned with applications of HBM in the assessment of health risks. The selection of publications for this review was limited by the search engines used (only PubMed and Scopus) and a timeframe of the last five years. The review focused on the clarity of 10 HRA elements, which influence the quality of HRA. We show that the usage of HBM data in HRA is limited and unclear. Primarily, the key HRA elements are not consistently applied or followed when using HBM in such assessments, and secondly, there are inconsistencies regarding the understanding of fundamental risk analysis principles and good practices in risk analysis. Our recommendations are as follows: (i) potential usage of HBM data in HRA should not be non-critically overestimated but rather limited and aligned to a specific value for exposure assessment or for the interpretation of health damage; (ii) improvements to HRA approaches, using HBM information or not, are needed and should strictly follow theoretical foundations of risk analysis.

The 2024 European Parliament elections took place against a backdrop of overlapping crises, including climate change, migration, and the Russian war against Ukraine, all of which have the potential to drive political polarization. These wedge issues can be strategically used in campaign communication to activate strong emotional and moral responses, exploit societal divisions, and fracture opposing coalitions. When combined with populist communication and illiberal rhetoric, they align closely with the attention dynamics of social media but also carry potential dangers for democratic discourse. However, research on how these elements are combined in parties’ campaign communication remains limited. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive manual quantitative content analysis of 8,748 Facebook posts from parties in 13 EU member states, examining how wedge issues were communicated and combined with populism and illiberalism during the 2024 European Parliament elections. Our analyses reveal that populist parties relied more heavily on wedge issues and combined them with populist communication and illiberal rhetoric more often than non-populist parties. Certain wedge issues appeared more conducive to these elements than others. The combination of wedge issues with populist communication and illiberal rhetoric as exclusionary rhetorical strategies thus emerges as a defining feature of populist digital campaigning. These elements can be seen as mutually reinforcing tools that structure harmful political interpretation patterns, particularly in times of polycrises. This underscores how digital platforms can be used to redefine the contours of democratic debate, making it even more essential to understand the communicative mechanisms through which parties influence public discourse in order to defend democracy.

Use of a multi-sensor approach can provide citizens a holistic insight in the air quality in their immediate surroundings and assessment of personal exposure to urban stressors. Our work, as part of the ICARUS H2020 project, which included over 600 participants from 7 European cities, discusses data fusion and harmonization on a diverse set of multi-sensor data streams to provide a comprehensive and understandable report for participants, and offers possible solutions and improvements. Harmonizing the data streams identified issues with the used devices and protocols, such as non-uniform timestamps, data gaps, difficult data retrieval from commercial devices, and coarse activity data logging. Our process of data fusion and harmonization allowed us to automate the process of generating visualizations and reports and consequently provide each participant with a detailed individualized report. Results showed that a key solution was to streamline the code and speed up the process, which necessitated certain compromises in visualizing the data. A thought-out process of data fusion and harmonization on a diverse set of multi-sensor data streams considerably improved the quality and quantity of data that a research participant receives. Though automatization accelerated the production of the reports considerably, manual structured double checks are strongly recommended.

Using low-cost portable air quality (AQ) monitoring devices is a growing trend in personal exposure studies enabling a higher spatio-temporal resolution and identifying acute exposure to high concentrations. Comprehension of results by participants is not guaranteed in exposure studies. However, information on personal exposure is multiplex, which calls for participant involvement in information design to maximise communication output and comprehension. This study describes and proposes a model of a user centred design (UCD) approach for preparing a final report for participants involved in a multi-sensor personal exposure monitoring study performed in seven cities within the EU Horizon 2020 ICARUS project. Using a combination of human-centred design (HCD), human-information interaction (HII) and design thinking approaches, we iteratively included participants in the framing and design of the final report. User needs were mapped using a survey (n=82), and feedback on the draft report was obtained from a focus group (n=5). User requirements were assessed and validated using a post-campaign survey (n=31). The UCD research was conducted amongst participants in Ljubljana, Slovenia and the results report was distributed among the participating cities across Europe. The feedback received made it clear that the final report was well-received and helped participants better understand the influence of individual behaviours on personal exposure to air pollution.