Indoor–outdoor relationships of particle number and mass in four European cities

Hoek, Gerard; Kos, G.P.A.; Harrison, Roy M.; Hartog, Jeroen de; Meliefste, Kees; Brink, H.M. ten; Katsouyanni, Klea; Karakatsani, Anna; Lianou, Maria; Kotronarou, Anastasia; Kavouras, Ilias G.; Pekkanen, Juha; Vallius, Marko; Kulmala, Markku; Puustinen, Arto; Thomas, Steven G.; Meddings, Claire; Ayres, Jon G.; Wijnen, Joop Van; Hämeri, Kaarle

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.026

Cited by 159 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the absence of intense indoor sources, studies show a general trend of higher outdoor concentrations rather than indoor values [8,36,37]. Furthermore, spatial and temporal variability of outdoor PM could significantly affect the relation between I-O concentrations [38]. In urban areas, as an example, the source proximity and the primary and secondary particulate pathways lead to the high variability of the observed PM size distributions and concentrations.…”

Section: Brief Summary Of the Main Characteristics Of Pm In Indoor Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Indoor-Outdoor Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Review

Salizzoni

Clerico

et al. 2017

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Background: Air pollution is a major global environmental risk factor. Since people spend most of their time indoors, the sole measure of outdoor concentrations is not sufficient to assess total exposure to air pollution. Therefore, the arising interest by the international community to indoor-outdoor relationships has led to the development of various techniques for the study of emission and exchange parameters among ambient and non-ambient pollutants. However, a standardised method is still lacking due to the complex release and dispersion of pollutants and the site conditions among studies. Methods: This review attempts to fill this gap to some extent by focusing on the analysis of the variety of site-specific approaches for the assessment of particulate matter in work and life environments. Results: First, the main analogies and differences between indoor and outdoor particles emerging from several studies are briefly described. Commonly-used indicators, sampling methods, and other approaches are compared. Second, recommendations for further studies based on recent results in order to improve the assessment and management of those issues are provided. Conclusions: This review is a step towards a comprehensive understanding of indoor and outdoor exposures which may stimulate the development of innovative tools for further epidemiological and multidisciplinary research.

show abstract

Section: Brief Summary Of the Main Characteristics Of Pm In Indoor Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Indoor-Outdoor Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Review

Salizzoni

Clerico

et al. 2017

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The small size of the PM 2.5 fraction increases the potential to penetrate from outdoor to indoor environments (Cyrys et al, 2004;Hoek et al, 2008). This is facilitated by opening doors and windows during natural ventilation and presence of cracks and fissures in old buildings.…”

Section: Impact Of Outdoor Airmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of PM_2.5 and carbon dioxide levels in urban homes

Abdel-Salam

2015

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PM 2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter <2.5 μm) samples were collected in the indoor environments of 15 urban homes and their adjacent outdoor environments in Alexandria, Egypt, during the spring time. Indoor and outdoor carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) levels were also measured concurrently. The results showed that indoor and outdoor PM 2.5 concentrations in the 15 sites, with daily averages of 45.5 ± 11.1 and 47.3 ± 12.9 µg/m 3 , respectively, were significantly higher than the ambient 24-hr PM 2.5 standard of 35 µg/m 3 recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The indoor PM 2.5 and CO 2 levels were correlated with the corresponding outdoor levels, demonstrating that outdoor convection and infiltration could lead to direct transportation indoors. Ventilation rates were also measured in the selected residences and ranged from 1.6 to 4.5 hr −1 with median value of 3.3 hr −1 . The indoor/outdoor (I/O) ratios of the monitored homes varied from 0.73 to 1.65 with average value of 0.99 ± 0.26 for PM 2.5 , whereas those for CO 2 ranged from 1.13 to 1.66 with average value of 1.41 ± 0.15. Indoor sources and personal activities, including smoking and cooking, were found to significantly influence indoor levels.Implications: Few studies on indoor air quality were carried out in Egypt, and the scarce data resulted from such studies do not allow accurate assessment of the current situation to take necessary preventive actions. The current research investigates indoor levels of PM 2.5 and CO 2 in a number of homes located in the city of Alexandria as well as the potential contribution from both indoor and outdoor sources. The study draws attention of policymakers to the importance of the establishment of national indoor air quality standards to protect human health and control air pollution in different indoor environments.

show abstract

“…Outdoor UFP concentrations were measured for 1-2 years in several US cities (U.S. EPA Supersites program; Solomon et al, 2008), and near roadways in California (Zhu et al, 2002) and also in Erfurt and Augsberg, Germany (Wichmann et al, 2000). Residential indoor concentrations have also been reported (Abt et al, 2000;Dennekamp et al, 2001;Long et al, 2001;Wallace and Howard-Reed, 2002;Klepeis et al, 2003;He et al, 2004;Wallace, 2000Wallace, , 2005Wallace, , 2006Wallace et al, 2004Wallace et al, , 2008Hoek et al, 2008). A number of studies of exposures while driving have been done (Westerdahl et al, 2005;Fruin et al, 2008;Zhu et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Personal exposure to ultrafine particles

Wallace¹,

Ott

2010

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

225

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personal exposure to ultrafine particles (UFP) can occur while people are cooking, driving, smoking, operating small appliances such as hair dryers, or eating out in restaurants. These exposures can often be higher than outdoor concentrations. For 3 years, portable monitors were employed in homes, cars, and restaurants. More than 300 measurement periods in several homes were documented, along with 25 h of driving two cars, and 22 visits to restaurants. Cooking on gas or electric stoves and electric toaster ovens was a major source of UFP, with peak personal exposures often exceeding 100,000 particles/cm 3 and estimated emission rates in the neighborhood of 10 12 particles/min. Other common sources of high UFP exposures were cigarettes, a vented gas clothes dryer, an air popcorn popper, candles, an electric mixer, a toaster, a hair dryer, a curling iron, and a steam iron. Relatively low indoor UFP emissions were noted for a fireplace, several space heaters, and a laser printer. Driving resulted in moderate exposures averaging about 30,000 particles/cm 3 in each of two cars driven on 17 trips on major highways on the East and West Coasts. Most of the restaurants visited maintained consistently high levels of 50,000-200,000 particles/cm 3 for the entire length of the meal. The indoor/outdoor ratios of size-resolved UFP were much lower than for PM 2.5 or PM 10 , suggesting that outdoor UFP have difficulty in penetrating a home. This in turn implies that outdoor concentrations of UFP have only a moderate effect on personal exposures if indoor sources are present. A time-weighted scenario suggests that for typical suburban nonsmoker lifestyles, indoor sources provide about 47% and outdoor sources about 36% of total daily UFP exposure and in-vehicle exposures add the remainder (17%). However, the effect of one smoker in the home results in an overwhelming increase in the importance of indoor sources (77% of the total). Keywords: cooking, restaurants, gas stoves, electric stoves, vehicles, tobacco smoke. IntroductionUltrafine particles (UFP) are increasingly studied because of considerations of their toxicology and possible human health effects (Oberdo¨rster et al., 2005; Bra¨uner et al., 2007a, b;Sto¨lzel et al., 2007). Outdoor UFP concentrations were measured for 1-2 years in several US cities (U.S. EPA Supersites program; Solomon et al., 2008), and near roadways in California (Zhu et al., 2002) and also in Erfurt and Augsberg, Germany (Wichmann et al., 2000). Residential indoor concentrations have also been reported (Abt et al., 2000;Dennekamp et al., 2001;Long et al., 2001;Wallace and Howard-Reed, 2002;Klepeis et al., 2003;He et al., 2004;Wallace, 2000Wallace, , 2005Wallace, , 2006Wallace et al., 2004Wallace et al., , 2008Hoek et al., 2008). A number of studies of exposures while driving have been done (Westerdahl et al., 2005;Fruin et al., 2008;Zhu et al., 2008). However, exposures in locations such as restaurants or while operating everyday sources of UFP close to one's person (stoves, toasters, ovens, hair dryers...

show abstract

Indoor–outdoor relationships of particle number and mass in four European cities

Cited by 159 publications

References 42 publications

Assessment of Indoor-Outdoor Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Review

Assessment of Indoor-Outdoor Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Review

Investigation of PM_2.5 and carbon dioxide levels in urban homes

Personal exposure to ultrafine particles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Indoor–outdoor relationships of particle number and mass in four European cities

Cited by 159 publications

References 42 publications

Assessment of Indoor-Outdoor Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Review

Assessment of Indoor-Outdoor Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Review

Investigation of PM2.5 and carbon dioxide levels in urban homes

Personal exposure to ultrafine particles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Investigation of PM_2.5 and carbon dioxide levels in urban homes