2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.058
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A noticeable shift in particulate matter levels after platform screen door installation in a Korean subway station

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
52
1
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
52
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Kim et al (2012) and Querol et al (2012) also reported that the PSDs were helpful reducing PM levels on the platform.…”
Section: Mass Concentrationsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Kim et al (2012) and Querol et al (2012) also reported that the PSDs were helpful reducing PM levels on the platform.…”
Section: Mass Concentrationsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…9c.). In Seoul, Korea, Kim et al (2012) found that PM10 concentrations at the platform were reduced by 16% after installation of full height platform screen doors. Therefore, the installation of full height screen doors in the Beijing subway could be an effective way to improve platform air quality, but the issue of removing the deposited subway PM from tunnels or slowing their release through air vents to the external urban environment remain important challenges.…”
Section: Implications For Subway Air Quality Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The subway aerosol particles are mainly generated by the abrasion of rail tracks, wheels, catenary and brake pads produced by the motion of the trains, and the movement of passengers which promotes the mixing and suspension of PM (Querol et al, 2012). PM levels have been reported in many subway systems, such as in Milan (Colombi et al, 2013), Barcelona (Querol et al, 2012;Moreno et al, 2014), Taipei (Cheng et al, 2008(Cheng et al, , 2012Cheng and Lin, 2010), Seoul (Kim et al, 2008(Kim et al, , 2012Park and Ha, 2008;Jung et al, 2010), Mexico City (Mugica-Álvarez et al, 2012;Gómez-Perales et al, 2004), Los Angeles (Kam et al, 2011a,b), New York (Wang and Gao, 2011;Chillrud et al, 2004Chillrud et al, , 2005, Shanghai (Ye et al, 2010), Sydney (Knibbs and de Dear, 2010), Buenos Aires (Murruni et al, 2009), Paris (Raut et al, 2009), Budapest (Salma et al, 2007), Beijing (Li et al, 2006(Li et al, , 2007, Prague (Braniš, 2006), Rome (Ripanucci et al, 2006), Helsinki (Aarnio et al, 2005), London (Seaton et al, 2005;Adams et al, 2001), Stockholm (Johansson and Johansson, 2003), Hong Kong (Chan et al, 2002a), Guangzhou (Chan et al, 2002b), Tokyo (Furuya et al, 2001), Boston (Levy et al, 2000), and Berlin (Fromme et al, 1998). However, results are not always directly comparable because of differences in sampling and measurement methods, data analysis, duration of the measurements and the type of environment studi...…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%