Fine Particles (PM1) in Four Different Indoor Environments

Abstract

Measurements of urban indoor fine particle <1 &mu;m (PM 1 ) mass concentrations were carried out in a lecture room, restaurant and two types of office. Twenty-four-hour concentrations of PM 1 were sampled from April to July 2000 by low-volume Harvard impactors. The 24-hour concentrations were in the range from 7.69 to 214.62 &mu;g.m -3 . The lowest average concentration was found in a non-smoking office (11.77 &mu;g.m -3 , range 7.69-17.27 &mu;g.m -3 ), the highest concentration in a restaurant (169.09 &mu;g.m -3 , range 131.91-214.62 &mu;g.m -3 ). In the lecturing room (average 17.98 &mu;g.m -3 , range 11.91-24.59 &mu;g.m -3 ), the particle concentrations corresponded to the number of people present during the day. In the offices, noticeable differences were found between working days and weekends or days when staff were not present. A strong influence of smoking on the concentrations of small particles was confirmed for the restaurant.

Assessing exposure to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars 2 years after the smoking regulations in Beijing, China

“…Consistent with other studies, PM 2.5 levels in venues with smoking observed were significantly higher than in venues without smoking observed (Agbenyikey et al., ; Hyland et al., ), indicating that SHS is a major source of indoor PM 2.5 contaminant. Peak‐time SHS PM concentrations in smoking restaurants and bars or in designated smoking sections reported in this study were lower than concentrations reported in some other studies, which reported median (or geometric mean, GM) PM 2.5 concentrations ranging from 50 to 663 μ g/m 3 in smoking restaurants (Akbar‐Khanzadeh, ; Alfaro, ; Branis et al., ; Brauer and Mannetje, ; Carrington et al., ; Gleich et al., ; Huss et al., ; Lai et al., ; Lambert et al., ; Proescholdbell et al., ; Travers, ) and 40–465 μ g/m 3 in smoking bars (Bolte et al., ; Daly et al., ; Ellingsen et al., ; Gleich et al., ; Goodman et al., ; Lee et al., ; Maskarinec et al., ; Repace et al., ; Rosen et al., ; Semple et al., ; Siegel, ; Travers, ; Valente et al., ; Vardavas et al., ; Waring and Siegel, ). However, for non‐smoking venues, SHS PM concentrations were higher in this study than in some other studies, which reported median PM 2.5 concentrations below 20 μ g/m 3 (Lopez et al., ; Proescholdbell et al., ; Travers, ; Wilson et al., ).…”

Indoor/ Outdoor Particulate Matter Concentrations at Some Elementary Schools in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

“…In a study performed in eight French schools, it was shown that student occupancy strongly influenced the indoor concentration level of airborne particles, especially in the coarse fraction, through re-suspension of previously deposited particles and possible particle generation . Indoor mass concentration of fine aerosols increases with the presence of students (Braniš et al, 2002). Since re-suspension is related more to coarse particles, Wallace (2000) and Braniš et al (2002) assumed that the main source of fine particles in the classroom was the 'cumulative personal cloud' of the students.…”

“…Indoor mass concentration of fine aerosols increases with the presence of students (Braniš et al, 2002). Since re-suspension is related more to coarse particles, Wallace (2000) and Braniš et al (2002) assumed that the main source of fine particles in the classroom was the 'cumulative personal cloud' of the students. Hourly concentrations of PM 2.5 were appreciably influenced by indoor sources presumably associated with the presence of students (Patterson and Eatough, 2000).…”

An evaluation of the indoor air quality in bars before and after a smoking ban in Austin, Texas

“…Branis et al (2002) measured fine particles (PM 1 ) in four different indoor environmentsFa lecture room, a restaurant, and two types of officesFand determined that the highest concentration was in the restaurant, which allowed smoking. Carrington et al (2003) sampled particulate matter and nicotine in 60 pubs in Greater Manchester, UK and found that pubs without designated smoking sections had the highest particle concentrations; that the presence of non-smoking sections reduced particle concentrations even in the smoking areas; that some exposure to elevated particle concentrations still occurred in the non-smoking areas; and that ventilation systems did not have a significant effect on the particle concentrations.…”