Modeling Indoor Air Exposure from Short-Term Point Source Releases

Abstract

We have developed a simplified analytical indoor air model that describes the concentrations as a function of position and time in a room following a short‐term release of airborne particles or gases. The indoor dispersion model considers the two main physical processes of (1) point‐source dispersion with reflection from all walls and (2) the general concentration decay in a room due to room ventilation and surface deposition of pollutants. Comparison of model predictions with experimental indoor measurements conducted by other researchers showed excellent agreement. This model should prove useful for human‐health risk estimations in which the inhalation dose resulting from an indoor, short‐term release of a contaminant needs to be calculated.

Evaluating Indoor Exposure Modeling Alternatives for LCA: A Case Study in the Vehicle Repair Industry

“…However, a number of studies investigating and evaluating model performance utilize measured data from existing studies [9,13,14,33,34] or data from controlled experiments [6,10].…”

Letter to the Editor regarding the Donovan et al. (2011) article

“…The authors' conclusions are not supported by the reviewed literature, but derive wholly from an indoor air dispersion model that was developed for asbestos litigation defense (Drivas et al, 1996). The authors give primacy to this model despite the fact that actual workplace measurements and workplace simulation studies contradict the results generated by the mathematical model.…”

“…As discussed, Donovan et al give primacy to the indoor air dispersion model developed by Drivas et al (1996). The Drivas et al (1996) article has the most intext citations in the review, and most of the authors' conclusions are based on results from this model.…”

“…The Drivas et al (1996) article has the most intext citations in the review, and most of the authors' conclusions are based on results from this model. However, Drivas et al (1996) is absent from the references.…”

“…Donovan et al claim that two dispersion models− 2. Drivas et al (1996) and Keil (2000) (which used the same parameters but did not account for particle reflection and deposition) − were "considered to be more representative of an occupational setting" than actual workplace or simulation studies (Donovan et al 2011, p.56). These models were used as the starting point for the review's "rule of thumb" for exposure levels at various distances from a source.…”